Citation
A comparison of adaptive behavior of mentally retarded and nonretarded inmates of the Florida Department of Corrections

Material Information

Title:
A comparison of adaptive behavior of mentally retarded and nonretarded inmates of the Florida Department of Corrections
Creator:
Smith, Craig Douglas, 1948-
Copyright Date:
1986
Language:
English

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright Craig Douglas Smith. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Resource Identifier:
15351645 ( OCLC )
AEK4279 ( LTUF )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
A COMPARISON OF ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR OF
MENTALLY RETARDED AND NONRETARDED INMATES OF THE
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
By
CRAIG DOUGLAS SMITH

A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE
SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN
PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

1986




This work is dedicated to Maribeth Smith,
my wife and friend,
and to the memory of the late Robert Wrenn.




ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Early in my program of doctoral study, I had occasion to seek refuge in a certain corner of the library near the referenced dissertations. I often would attempt to postpone my scholarly duties by reading acknowledgements from works of students who had passed before me. None of these students were known to me but I was often moved at the outpouring of sentiment expressed to acknowledge support and help they had received in the arduous task of completing the dissertation. That said, it is now my time.
I wish to extend my sincere thanks to my supervisory committee. They have provided me with the highest level of support, guidance, and understanding. My chairman and friend, Rex Schmid, will have my enduring gratitude and respect for his patience, support, and humor. Above all else, Dr. Schmid approaches life's trials with a special sense of proportion understood by few others. Bob Algozzine has been living proof that scholarly criticism can be relevant yet light-hearted. I would like to extend many thanks to Dr. Cary Reichard for support, practical guidance, and friendship extended during my stay at the University of Florida. Dr. Larry O'Shea has given of his expertise freely in the true spirit of academic collegiality and will be always warmly remembered. Dr. Phil Clark




has provided me with insight into my own leadership and motivation skills so I will, hopefully, not reprise some of my past blunders. I thank them all for supervising my studies in a professional and scholarly manner.
The impact of my fellow students should not go unmentioned. I was fortunate to be touched by people who have enriched me. They are too numerous to mention but too special to forget. Dr. Lee Clark, Greg Valcante, Kim Stoddard, Tom Gollery, P. J. Hudson, Jack Scott, and Pam Campbell will always have a special place in my memory.
Several other people have been influential on my personal and
professional development. Bill and Sue Evans have provided friendship and guidance through difficult and pleasant times. They have had the wisdom to know when to remain silent and when to offer advice. My former superior officers at the Escambia County School System have provided me with constant motivation in ways they will never realize. I thank them. I am very grateful to Leila Cantara for typing this work. Her patient advice during two periods of graduate work has saved me from many acts of ignorance. I hope the many friends I have failed to mention will forgive me for I realize that none of us are self-made.
Final thanks are saved for my family for they have been my
greatest joy and source of strength. My children, Craig and Robbie, have given me much more than I will ever be able to return to them. I owe a staggering debt to my wife, Maribeth, for enduring what surely has been a long and difficult path to completion of my goal. She




has been an unfailing source of strenth, love, and friendship throughout our time together. I am better for having had their company in my journey through life.




TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .
LIST OF TABLES viii
ABSTRACT ix
CHAPTERS
I INTRODUCTION 1
The Problem 5
Rationale 7
Development of the Prison System in the United
States 7
Alternative Methods for Treatment of Criminal
Behavior 8
Rehabilitation in the American Criminal Justice
System 10
The Relationship Between Mental Retardation and
Criminal Behavior . 12
Rehabilitation of the Mentally Retarded Offender . 13
Delimitations is
Limitations 16
Definition of Terms 16
Summary 17
II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . . . . . . 19
Selection of Relevant Literature . . . . . . 19
The Nature of the Literature . . . : , , 21
The Efficacy of Rehabilitation Philosophy in
Corrections 23
The Mentally Retarded Offender . . . . . . 29
Prevalence of the Mentally Retarded Offender . . 30 Characteristics of the Mentally Retarded Offender 37
Characteristics of the Incarcerated Mentally
Retarded Offender 41
Summary 45
vi




III METHODS .

Subjects 47
Procedures 49
Task 1 49
Task 2 51
Independent Variable . . . . . . . . . 54
Dependent Variables . . . . . . . . . 54
Data Analysis 55
Summary 56
IV RESULTS 57
Descriptive Statistics of Sample Groups . . . . 57
Demographic Characteristics of Sample Groups . . 58
Educational Characteristics of Sample Groups . . 61
Criminal History for Sample Groups . . . . 63
Analysis of Adaptive Behavior . . . . . . 65
Results of Task I . . . . . . . 66
Results of Task 2 . . . . . . . 69
Summary 71
V DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS . . . . . . . 73
Review of the Study . . . . . . . . . 73
The Problem 73
Summary of the Method . . . . . . . . 74
Problems and Limitations . . . . . . . 74
Discussion and Implications . . . . . . . 75
Descriptive Statistics of Sample Groups . . . 76
Results of Task 1 . . . . . . . . 82
Results of Task 2 . . . . . . . . 86
Significance of the Study . . . . . . . 90
Suggestions for Further Research . . . . . . 93
REFERENCES 96
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH . . . . . . . . . . 102




LIST OF TABLES

Table
1 The Efficacy of Rehabilitation Philosophy in
Corrections .
2 Characteristics of the Mentally Retarded Offender
3 Design Schema .
4 Demographic Characteristics of Sample Groups . . 5 Educational Characteristics of Sample Groups . . 6 Criminal History of Sample Groups . . . . 7 Adaptive Behavior Cluster Skills . . . . 8 Results of Task 1 .
9 Mean Number of Disciplinary Reports . . . . 10 Demographic Characteristics Reported for the Mentally
Retarded Offender .
11 Educational Characteristics Reported for the Mentally
Retarded Offender .
12 Criminal History Reported for the Mentally Retarded
Offender .

Page

24 31
52 59 62
64 67 68 70 78 81 83

viii




Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
A COMPARISON OF ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR OF
MENTALLY RETARDED AND NONRETARDED INMATES OF THE
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS By
Craig Douglas Smith
August, 1986
Chairman: Rex E. Schmid
Cochairman: Robert F. Algozzine Major Department: Special Education
The purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy of programming for adaptive behavior deficits of mentally retarded prison inmates in the Florida Department of Corrections. The problem investigated in this study was, "does the Florida Department of Corrections prison program compensate for postulated adaptive behavior differences between mentally retarded and nonretarded inmates?" Two tasks were proposed to investigate this problem. The purpose of task 1 was to identify the manner and frequency with which adaptive behavior was provided for in the Florida Department of Corrections rehabilitation plans for mentally retarded inmates. The purpose of task 2 was to see if differences existed in adaptation to prison regime between mentally retarded and nonretarded inmates as measured by disciplinary reports in prison.




The sample for Group 1 (mentally retarded inmates) consisted of 439 cases selected to represent the "typical" or most frequently occurring mentally retarded inmate in the Florida prison system based on characteristics of sex, age, and commitment offense. Group 2 (matched nonretarded inmates) was comprised of 439 cases randomly selected from the population of nonretarded inmates that had the same selection criteria as Group 1. Group 3 (unmatched nonretarded inmates) was comprised of 439 cases randomly selected from the population of nonretarded inmates.
Characteristics of adaptive behavior that relate to prison
populations were compared with rehabilitation plans of selected mentally retarded inmates in the Florida Department of Corrections to complete task 1. Group means for number of disciplinary reports received by mentally retarded and nonretarded inmates were calculated and compared to complete task 2. One-way analysis of variance and Tukey's test were used to determine statistical significance.
Results of this study suggested that mentally retarded and
nonretarded prison inmates in the Florida Department of Corrections adjust to prison regime in a similar manner. The results of this study suggested that behavior in prison was similar across certain measures for mentally retarded and nonretarded inmates. Further research was recommended.




CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
More than 350,000 persons were incarcerated in federal and state prisons at any given time in the 1970s (United States Department of Justice, 1980) with the majority undereducated, underskilled, and from culturally or financially impoverished backgrounds (Reichard, Spencer, & Spooner, 1982). The United States Department of Justice noted in 1980 that median educational achievement level for the general population was 10.6 years as opposed to only 8.6 years for the nation's inmates. The incidence of current inmates with no vocational skills was five times the national average with 90% earning less than $5,000 per year prior to incarceration as compared with 56% of the general population at the same income level. To generalize these findings to the criminal population at large, however, is to assume the incarcerated population is a representative sample of the criminal population. This is not necessarily so. There were approximately
6.5 million arrests in the United States during 1980, yet state correctional facilities only received about 75,000 convicted felons in the same year (United States Department of Justice, 1980). While it is recognized that some arrests involved apprehension of the same individuals more than once, it would appear that no more than 1% of arrested individuals were committed to state prison systems (Reichard et al., 1982).




2
Mentally retarded inmates are a subpopulation within the
United States prison system (Reichard et al., 1982). Prevalence of mental retardation in the general population has been estimated to range from .2 to 2.4% (Tarjan, Wright, Eyman, & Keenan, 1973). Several investigators since the late 1960s, however, have suggested that prevalence of mental retardation in the prison population is much higher (Reichard et al., 1982; Santamour & West, 1978). Using national surveys, Haskins and Friel (1973) found a rate of 4.1% while Brown and Courtless (1970) found the rate to be 9.5%. State surveys have reported prevalence rates that varied from 7.9% (South Carolina Department of Corrections, 1980) to 39.6% (Atlanta Association for Retarded Citizens, 1975). Most investigators place the prevalence of mental retardation in the prison population of approximately 10% (Reichard et al., 1982). Brown and Courtless (1971) suggested that subnormal intelligence may be a factor in determining the sentence of criminal defendants. If this is the case, then disproportionate numbers of mentally retarded offenders committed to prison should be viewed as a sentencing alternative used by the courts rather than evidence to imply that mental retardation leads to criminal behavior (Reichard et al., 1982).
The prison systems that incarcerate these individuals often
emphasize rehabilitation of inmates (Cole, 1984). A consistent theme in American corrections since the late 1800s has been that interests of society are best served by rehabilitating criminal behavior. The philosophy of rehabilitation suggests that criminal behavior can




best be reduced by addressing its causes. Rehabilitation programs in prison systems often make use of educational and vocational training designed to address interests and future needs of inmates. Recreation, religious, and counseling programs are also used to provide opportunities for inmates to affect changes in their behavior while incarcerated.
The prison system in Florida is operated as part of the Florida Department of Corrections. The Department of Corrections is responsible for the custody, care, treatment, and supervision of adult criminal offenders committed from the circuit court system of the State of Florida. Rehabilitation programs operated by the Department of Corrections include vocational training, academic classes, counseling programs, recreational opportunities, and employment in prison-sponsored industry and agriculture. The Florida Department of Corrections has no legal control over the type of individuals committed to its custody. It must accept any individual, regardless of mental status, who is committed by the circuit court.
Ilentally retarded prison inmates in Florida are not systematically segregated for placement in specialized units. Inmates are classified on the basis of age, sex, conviction offense, educational level, and security classification or risk. Mentally retarded inmates are identified by intelligence testing but not by adaptive behavior. They are expected to comply with the same rules and regulations as all other inmates in the department. The Florida Department of Corrections believes this practice has a normalizing effect for




mentally retarded prisoners and considers it to be an advantage in their treatment. This is not an atypical situation in prison systems in the United States (Reichard et al., 1982; Santamour & West, 1982; Smith, Reichard, & Nunnery, in press). There is evidence, however, to suggest that this approach does not adequately address the needs of
the mentally retarded inmate.
Problems of overcrowding, criminal behavior, violence, and sexual abuse exist in most prison systems. Several authors have suggested that these problems are compounded by the behavior of the mentally retarded inmate. Brown and Courtless (1971) reported that departments
of corrections often faced staffing problems and were not able to provide the individual services and protection required by the mentally retarded prisoner. When special attempts were made to provide adequate staff to address adjustment problems and behavior of the mentally retarded inmate, manpower was diverted from the rest of the population. Other unique problems were posed to prison administrators by mentally retarded inmates. The South Carolina Department of Corrections (1980) reported that
the developmentally disabled offenders suffered from the
system and, conversely, the system suffered from the presence of this group. In a survey of correctional
officers and inmates, the developmentally disabled
offenders were reported to be frequently abused,
exploited, and manipulated by the brighter inmates.
Developmentally disabled offenders were perceived to
be highly impressionable, and were said to learn
criminal behaviors of which they were previously naive.
The correctional system was reported to suffer from the
developmentally disabled offenders behavior. Deficiencies
in ability to function independently, to comprehend
regulations and procedures, and the continual need to
be protected from brighter inmates intensified problems
of an already overburdened security staff. (p. 4)




MacEachron (1978) noted that mentally retarded inmates were often out of step with the dominant characteristics of the average prisoner. The mentally retarded prisoner was victimized by more sophisticated inmates and, because of their desire to be accepted, the maladaptive consequences of their behavior frequently became intensified as they assumed values of prison culture.
The Problem
Many prison systems, including Florida's, do not provide specialized treatment for mentally retarded inmates. It is the practice of the Florida Department of Corrections that deficits in adaptive behavior caused by mental retardation are best addressed by treating mentally retarded inmates in the same manner as inmates with normal intelligence. The Florida Department of Corrections monitors inmate behavior through a record of disciplinary infractions compiled during incarceration. Disciplinary infractions provide a measure of adaptive behavior in areas such as aggression, compliance with authority, narcotics and alcohol abuse, and adherence to prison rules.
If this approach is effective in compensating for adaptive
behavior deficits of mentally retarded prisoners, there should be no group differences in the behavior of retarded and nonretarded inmates. Therefore, the problem under investigation in this study is, "does the Florida Department of Corrections prison program compensate for postulated adaptive behavior differences between mentally retarded and nonretarded inmates?"




Specific questions to be answered in this investigation include the following:
1. Which adaptive behaviors are addressed in rehabilitation plans for mentally retarded inmates in the Florida Department of Corrections?
2. What are the provisions made by the prison system to compensate for these behaviors?
3. Does the number of disciplinary reports received by mentally retarded inmates for disobeying orders differ from the number of disciplinary reports received by nonretarded inmates?
4. Does the number of disciplinary reports received by mentally retarded inmates for attempted escape differ from the number of disciplinary reports received by nonretarded inmates?
5. Does the number of disciplinary reports received by mentally retarded inmates for assaulting a correctional officer differ from the number of disciplinary reports received by nonretarded inmates?
6. Does the number of disciplinary reports received by mentally retarded inmates for assaulting an inmate differ from the number of disciplinary reports received by nonretarded inmates?
7. Does the number of disciplinary reports received by mentally retarded inmates for possession of narcotics differ from the number of disciplinary reports received by nonretarded inmates?
8. Does the number of disciplinary reports received by mentally retarded inmates for possession of alcohol differ from the number of disciplinary reports received by nonretarded inmates?




9. Does the number of disciplinary reports received by mentally retarded inmates for failure to maintain personal hygiene differ from the number of disciplinary reports received by nonretarded inmates?
Rationale
Attempts to correct aberrant social behavior have taken several forms during the course of western civilization with references to vengeance and retribution against societal misfits and criminals appearing throughout recorded history. Initially, acts of revenge were carried out by relatives or, ultimately, by the tribe of the injured party. Later the state took responsibility for penalizing offenders. For many centuries corporal and capital punishment were the methods used to correct deviant behavior. Imprisonment began in Europe as part of the social-welfare system during the 1400s. Indigents were sentenced to periods of confinement to provide labor for agriculture and public works. Use of physical punishment and execution to address criminality remained the norm in Euro-Pe and the United States throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries (Newman, 1978). Imprisonment for criminal behavior, however, was not widely used until the late 1700s.
Development of the Prison System in the United States
The American prison system began in the 1600s as a means for addressing poverty rather than criminal behavior. The county work house resembled a modern prison in terms of purpose if not structure and was designed to correct behavior, rehabilitate the individual, and make a productive community member. The religious values of the day




permitted understanding and acceptance of "deserving poor" while the "undeserving poor"--the willfully idle, insane, and mentally subnormal--were viewed as a threat to community stability and welfare. These attempts by the community to correct threats to social order became part of the formal legal codes by the late 1600s (Walker, 1980).
The first institutions used to incarcerate criminals were
established in New England during the early 1700s. The prevailing Calvinist doctrines that stressed the natural depravity of man and the power of the devil did not allow optimism about reforming the criminal. The colonists believed that only severe punishments held any hope for reducing criminal behavior (Rothman, 1971). These prisons received their primary impetus from organized religion and reflected punitive aspects associated with the religious dogma of the period. The prevailing correctional practice at that time was to place individuals whose lives were disordered into a highly structured setting where they could learn self-control. Silence was supposed to encourage the offender to become penitent, hence the name penitentiary for the prison. By the 1820s prisons were the principle American method for correcting criminal behavior and incarceration was established as a method to prevent crime. Alternative Methods for Treatment of Criminal Behavior
Society's increased use of incarceration to prevent crime and correct undesirable social behavior resulted in the overcrowding of prisons. Early release was first used to address this overcrowding. Sentences to periods of labor for indigence were often shortened by




apprenticeship or indenture. Two methods for shortening sentences of adult criminals were pardon and commutation which were liberally used during the nineteenth century in the United States. Wines and Dwight (1867) reported the incidence of pardon and commutation increased in proportion to length of sentence. Of all prisoners in Massachusetts, approximately 12% received pardons or commutations between 1828 and 1866. The percentage increased from 20.5% for inmates with sentences of 5 to 10 years, to 32% for those with sentences longer than 10 years, and 50% for inmates sentenced to life imprisonment.
Parole was the release of an inmate from prison upon evidence of rehabilitation and originated in the English criminal justice system. In 1837, the English Parliament authorized a system whereby criminals were sent to penal colonies in Australia. Each prisoner's behavior was systematically evaluated while in the penal colonies and satisfactory compliance with prison rules resulted in release from sentence after several years (Hibbert, 1968). In Ireland, parole was a system of progression from solitary confinement through five classifications ending in a period of time at a halfway house. Successful adjustment at the halfway house resulted in release from sentence (Lindsey, 1925).
Parole and indeterminate sentencing in the United States developed in an ad hoc manner, often as an expedient solution to a unique case. Laws creating the indeterminate sentence and parole in the late 1800s formalized existing practices of many local courts and prisons. The




first parole system in the United States was established in 1877 in New York state. This set a precedent for control of the prisoner for the maximum term of sentence or until evidence of rehabilitation was displayed (McKelvey, 1977). New York was the first state to systematically grade inmate behavior by mandating use of indeterminate sentencing and parole.
The indeterminate sentence and parole often developed as separate entities in the late 1800s. Some states adopted both concepts while others used one without the other. Development was further complicated by specific provisions in several states for maximum and minimum sentences. By 1900, 11 states used the indeterminate sentence and another 20 states had some form of parole or conditional release (Lindsey, 1925). All states used indeterminate sentences and parole by 1936 (Walker, 1980). The Concept of Rehabilitation in the American Criminal
Justice System
American prison systems began to emphasize rehabilitation of criminal behavior during the last two decades of the 1800s with the concept of rehabilitation first expressed in writing by the National Congress of Penitentiary and Reformatory Discipline in 1870 (McKelvey, 1977). The National Congress later became the American Correctional Association which formulated 37 principles, many of which remain the basis for rehabilitation philosophy, i.e., indeterminate sentences, cultivation of the inmate's self-respect, classification of prisoners, reformation rather than punishment, and development of programs to make industrious free men rather than orderly and obedient prisoners (McKelvey, 1977).




The sharpest current controversy in corrections focuses on the efficacy of rehabilitation programs. Several authors have questioned the value of its practice (Fogel, 1975; Kasselbaum, Ward, 4 Wilner, 1971; Martinson, 1975). Most current criticism of rehabilitation in corrections is based on the work of Robert Martinson (1975). Martinson reviewed over 200 research reports pertaining to rehabilitation programs and concluded that rehabilitation efforts had no effect on recidivism. Kasselbaum, Ward, and Wilner conducted an earlier survey in 1971, and reported it was impossible to make a case for positive effects of rehabilitation efforts. Proponents of eliminating rehabilitation called for a more efficient court system to provide faster trials with more uniform and predictable sentences. They also recommended that rehabilitation programs be offered on a voluntary basis (Fogel, 1975). Martinson further suggested that a fixed penalty for each offense was the only equitable solution for society and the offender noting the indeterminate sentence frustrated both prison administrators and inmates. This view has come to be called the "Justice Theory of Corrections" and relies on retribution and deterrence for its justification (Bartollas, 1985).
The philosophy of rehabilitation was based on the belief that
criminal behavior could be reduced by treating its causes. Menninger (1969) noted that society and the offender were best served by changing the individual from a lawbreaker to a lawabiding citizen. Ellis MacDougall (1976) reported that rehabilitation programs were never adequately funded or given more than token support. It was, therefore,




unfair to conclude they did not work. MacDougall further argued that retribution had not worked in the past, therefore, there was no reason to believe it would work now or in the future. The American Correctional Association also took a strong position in favor of rehabilitation in corrections (Beto, Park, & Lej ins, 1972). While most state corrections systems today practice a combination of rehabilitation and retribution, prison overcrowding, staff shortages, and budget limitation mitigate exclusive use of either theory. The Relationship Between Mental Retardation and Criminal Behavior
Several early twentieth century investigators proposed a
relationship between subnormal intelligence and criminal behavior. Goddard (1914) investigated mental ability of prison inmates as part of his attempt to develop intelligence tests. He found a majority of prisoners he studied scored at the lower end of the intelligence scale. Fernald (1915) concluded that mentally retarded individuals would inevitably become criminals if not properly supervised. Their findings were based on studies of delinquent youth from which they concluded 25% of all criminals were mentally subnormal. In another study, Goddard (1915) obtained data from 16 institutions for adult offenders. He concluded the incidence of mental retardation ranged from 28% to 89%. Glueck and Glueck (1943) completed a survey of 500 women paroled from a women's prison in Massachusetts in 1934, and found the sample contained 245 mentally retarded individuals.
Zeleny (1933) reported results of a review of mental retardation studies conducted between 1910 and 1930. He found much lack of




agreement among investigators regarding a relationship between mental retardation and criminal conduct because of variability in standards used for testing. He attempted to compare the prevalence estimates of these studies with the population at large and concluded general agreement with an average 3.2% male and 5.9% female retarded in the criminal population.
Several investigators encouraged development of a theory that
mental retardation predisposed a person to criminal behavior (Fernald, 1915; Glueck & Glueck, 1943; Goddard, 1914, 1916; Zeleny, 1933). This notion was based on large numbers of the prison population measured as intellectually and socially subnormal. The general view was if retardation precipitated criminal behavior and retardation was irreversible, the retarded offender was, therefore, a poor risk for rehabilitation. A negative stereotype about mentally retarded offenders persisted as a result of these studies despite the lack of empirical evidence that correlation between intelligence and criminal behavior implied causation.
Rehabilitation of the Mentally Retarded Offender
Rehabilitation of the mentally retarded offender traditionally involved three possible approaches: segregation and use of special facilities, normalization and individualized treatment within prison populations, no use of differential treatment (Santamour & West, 1982). Segregation of mentally retarded prisoners has often taken the form of isolation or housing with sexually deviant inmates. These methods were reported as undesirable and ineffective (Reichard et al., 1982).




Segregation of the mentally retarded inmate in special facilities has often taken the form of isolation or housing with mentally ill or institutionalized mentally retarded. Segregation in special facilities presented unique problems to those offenders and administrators involved in programming and has generally accomplished little but incorporation of the worst features of prisons and civil institutions (Lottman, 1976).
The principle of normalization originated with Samuel Gridley
Howe (1874), was later titled as such by Nirje (1969), and then elaborated upon by Wolfensberger (1972). Normalization referred to benefits obtained from treating the retarded person like normal persons, insofar as possible, while recognizing the individual deficits caused by mental retardation. Therefore, the retarded person who committed a crime would be treated in the same ways prescribed for the nonretarded but with consideration given for mental retardation by individualized, or differential, treatment.
Normalization requires individualized programming when used in rehabilitation of criminal behavior. It does not mean treating the mentally retarded prisoner as normal. It requires that retarded prisoners have individualized opportunities based on consideration of their handicap. Kapp (1973) questioned whether these opportunities were available to retarded offenders in prison under most systems. He stated that availability of individualized treatment based on deficits caused by mental retardation was as important to success in rehabilitation as in education. Overby (1982) noted that lack of




differential treatment led to poor adjustment and poor progress while in prison. Santamour and West (1982) found the retarded inmate benefited most when prison adjustment was accomplished through a plan of normalization and differential treatment.
Santamour and West (1977) noted that any social welfare system
provides treatment to its dominant group. There is historic resistance of corrections programs and social-welfare systems to accept responsibility for mentally retarded criminals (Santainour & West, 1977). Mentally retarded offenders are misfits in both systems, therefore, the level of differential treatment available to them is minimal (Rowan, 1976).
Society's reaction to the mentally retarded has progressed from ignorance to isolation to treatment. Differential treatment of the mentally retarded has been used in education and vocational programs successfully (Chinn, Drew, & Logan, 1979). Rehabilitation theory in corrections recognizes individualized treatment to correct characteristics that may cause, or influence, criminal behavior. Treatment is operationalized in prison systems as harsh punishment, psychiatric care, counseling, and mixtures in between. It remains important to distinguish between mentally retarded and nonretarded offenders when designing and implementing individualized treatment (Overby, 1982).
Delimitations
This study was delimited to the Florida Department of Corrections. The data analyzed were stored in the Florida Department of Corrections computer management information system for 26,493 inmates incarcerated from 1976 through 1985.




Limi tations
Results obtained in this study are limited with regard to
generalizability to state departments of corrections that classify prison inmates as to intelligence. A centralized computer management system was used to secure necessary data. Therefore, human error with regard to entering data could be a limitation.
Definition of Terms
The following definitions of terms important to this investigation were developed to insure greater consistency in interpreting results.
Adaptive behavior. Adaptive behavior is the effectiveness or
degree with which an individual meets standards of personal independence and social responsibility expected for age and cultural group (Chinn et al., 1979, p. 24).
Criminal justice system. The criminal justice system is comprised of the activities of police, lawyers, courts, and corrections workers (Schlitt, 1979, p. 238).
Disciplinary report. A disciplinary report is a written citation against an inmate for a violation of Florida Department of Corrections rules or Florida criminal statutes (Florida Department of Corrections, 1984, p. 145).
Felony. A felony is a criminal offense punishable by a term of at least one year in the custody of the Florida State Department of Corrections (Bartollas, 1985, p. 28).
Mental retardation. Mental retardation refers to significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning existing concurrently with




deficits in adaptive behavior, and manifested during the developmental period (Grossman, 1983, p. 11). Florida Department of Corrections practice, however, operationalizes mental retardation as intellectual functioning of at least two standard deviations below the mean of the Otis-Lennon Mental Ability Test.
Misdemeanor. A misdemeanor is a criminal offense punishable by a term of imprisonment of less than one year in a county jail or correctional facility (Bartollas, 1985, p. 28).
Parole. Parole is the supervision of offenders who have served a portion of their sentence in a correctional institution and who are under the continued custody of the state (Bartoilas, 1985, p. 196).
Summary
Fiscal and social accountability are important to those concerned with administration of corrections as society allocates an increasing amount of financial resources to offender rehabilitation. Efficacy of rehabilitation practice, however, has come under scrutiny due to increased crime rates (Clear, 1984). Several authors have suggested differential treatment based on deficits of adaptive behavior as important to success in programming for the mentally retarded in academics, employment, and career education (Cegelka & Prehm, 1982; Chinn et al., 1979; Haring, 1979). Differential handling of the mentally retarded offender has also been cited as effective in rehabilitation of criminal behavior (Reichard et al., 1982; Santamour & West, 1982).




Differential treatment of the mentally retarded prisoner, as in education, should be based on adaptive behavior deficits unique in severity to the mentally retarded. Most prison systems in the United States, however, do not provide differential treatment for mentally retarded inmates. This approach is based on the belief that integration with nonretarded inmates helps in adjustment to prison routine and, ultimately, rehabilitation. If this approach is effective in compensating for behavior deficits of the mentally retarded, no differences should exist between this group and nonretarded inmates on measures of behavior.




CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Results of a review of literature concerning the mentally retarded offender will be presented in this chapter. Procedures used for obtaining and selecting literature are detailed, the nature of the literature is provided, analysis and conclusions are presented.
Selection of Relevant Literature
This review contains relevant literature that met preestablished criteria. This literature was located using the following sources: the Criminal Justice Abstracts, the Criminal Justice Periodical Index, the Criminology and Penology Abstracts, the Dissertation Abstracts International, and the Cumulative Index to Journals in Education. Descriptors used in the search included mental retardation, mentally retarded, rehabilitation, developmental disabilities, criminals, corrections, correctional treatment, handicapped offender, prison, and mentally retarded offender.
The initial search consisted of locating those studies published from 1975 through 1985. A period of 10 years was used for two reasons. First, due to enactment of Public Law 94-142, the Education For All Handicapped Children Act, and Section 504 of Public Law 93-112, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, it was theorized that special services for




certain adult mentally retarded offenders would be improved due to mandates of this law requiring formalized education and treatment plans for handicapped individuals. Public Law 94-142 was enacted in 1975. Second, there appeared to be a paucity of research in criminal justice and corrections after 1980 due to a lack of funding by the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (Diegelman, 1982). The Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAAJ was established by congress in 1968 to provide money for research and administration in criminal justice. The LEAA still exists although congress has not appropriated funds for operation since 1979.
The bibliography of each study was examined for additional
references. From the bibliographies of articles published during the identified years, a number of related articles dating as early as 1966 were also identified. The bibliographies also provided information about which journals most frequently published articles related to the topDic. Among the journals identified were the American Journal of Corrections, the Canadian Journal of Criminology, Corrections Magazine, Corrections Today, Federal Probation, and the International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology. The indices of these journals were examined from 1975 to 1984.
A survey of the card catalog at the University of Florida's main library revealed several books about corrections, rehabilitation, and the mentally retarded offender. Among the books reviewed was Popular Justice (Walker, 1980). This book provided a history of corrections and its relationship to the criminal justice system. The Retarded




Offender (Santamour 4 Watson, 1982) and Correctional Treatment: Theory and Practice (Bartollas, 1985) provided a framework for development of rehabilitation and correctional treatment in the criminal justice system.
Criteria for initial selection of reports to be included in the critical review were established, The article had to address some aspect of corrections or rehabilitation theory and be published subsequent to 1975. Several studies from 1966 to 1975 were included in the final analysis of literature. The article had to address the mentally retarded offender at some point in the criminal justice system (prevalence, characteristics, crime, arrest, sentencing, or treatment).
Thirty-two articles met the initial selection criteria. Of that number, seven were rejected. The remaining 25 studies were evaluated as positive (+), negative (-), or neutral (0), based on use of databased research, use of descriptive statistics provided by state agencies, reviews of literature, opinion pieces based on reviews of literature, and opinion pieces without literature reviews.
The Nature of the Literature
The problem addressed in this study, adaptive behavior of the incarcerated mentally retarded offender, has not appeared in recent literature. Studies regarding certain characteristics of the mentally retarded offender were reported prior to 1975. None, however, included the characteristic of inmate behavior during incarceration. None of the reports compared behavior characteristics of this population with




(Heber, 1961), and further developed by later revisions of this manual (Grossman, 1983).

nonretarded prison inmates. Several reports most closely related to the topic were chosen with analysis done in subsections concerning efficacy of rehabilitation in corrections and characteristics of the mentally retarded offender at various stages of the criminal justice system. Analysis of literature was done in these subsections for the following reasons. Concern about the nature and efficacy of rehabilitation theory is important as a basis for understanding attempts to differentially treat the mentally retarded offender (Santamour & West, 1978). It is also important to consider what is known about characteristics of the mentally retarded offender at various stages of the criminal justice system. If a case is to be made for differential treatment in prison based on deficits caused by mental retardation, an analysis of the strengths and weaknesses in this literature is required.
An important characteristic of mental retardation concerns deficits of adaptive behavior (Grossman, 1983). Adaptive behavior or related concepts have been involved in definition and classification for a major portion of the history of effort in mental retardation (Chinn et al., 1979). Only in about the past two decades, however, have conceptualization and measurement progressed to a point that adaptive behavior is viewed as a functional parameter of classification of mental retardation. Primary impetus for this movement came from the work of Sloan and Birch (1955), which was adapted for the American Association on Mental Deficiency Manual on Terminology and Classification




Although IQ scores were widely used as the primary determinant of mental retardation, not all agreed with this practice. The American Association on Mental Deficiency (AAMD), in its 1961 definition of mental retardation, noted the importance of social adaptation, as well as general intelligence (Heber, 1961). The AAMD guidelines operationalized mental retardation to include significant difficulties in adapting to the demands of the environment. Subsequent definition of mental retardation has included this component of adaptive behavior deficits (Grossman, 1983).
The assumption that unique characteristics of the mentally
retarded offender generalize to behavior while incarcerated requires closer scrutiny since behavior is often the main indication of adjustment to prison and rehabilitation (Clear, 1984). Further information on literature selected for analysis is presented in two tables, as follows: efficacy of rehabilitation in corrections and characteristics of the mentally retarded offender.
The Efficacy of Rehabilitation Philosophy in Corrections
Selected research on the efficacy of rehabilitation philosophy in
corrections is reported in Table 1. Presented in the table are author(s) and dates of publication, subjects, independent and dependent variables, and conclusions. Six studies are reported, five of which attempted to measure the efficacy of rehabilitation treatment in prison by using recidivism rates. One study attempted to judge the effectiveness of rehabilitation by measuring inmate participation in prison programs.




Table 1

The Efficacy of Rehabilitation Philosophy in Corrections

Author/ Type of Dependent Independent
Year Study Subjects Variable Variable Conclusions

Bailey, 1966 Robison &
Smith, 1971
Martinson, 1975
Serrill,
1976
Gendreau & Ross, 1979

Survey

Review of literature
Review of literature
Survey
Review of literature

n=100 treatment programs
n=75 treatment programs
n=200 treatment studies
n=1000 prison
inmates
n=95 intervention or treatment studies

Recidivism rates
Recidivism rates
Recidivism rates
Recidivism and parole violations
Recidivism rates

Rehabilitation programming
Presence of rehabilitative treatment
program
Presence of treatment program
Presnece of rehabilitative treatment in prison
Treatment or rehabilitation programming

Rehabilitation philosophy not effective
No evidence to indicate reduction in recidivism
based on presnece of treatment program
Rehabilitative treatment partially effective in 48% of studies; rehabilitative treatment
not effective in 49% of studies
Presence of treatment while in prison had no effect on recidivism or parole violations
Recidivism lowered in 86% of studies reviewed




Table 1--Continued

Author/ Type of Dependent Independent
Year Study Subjects Variable Variable Conclusions
Petersilia, Survey n=50 state Participation Availability of Participation of 40% of
1980 prison systems in prison treatment in prison inamtes at any
rehabilitation prison given time in any
program program




It had been theorized that the goal of rehabilitation philosophy was to change an offender's character, attitudes,- or behavior patterns to diminish criminal propensities (von Hirsh, 1976). Advocates of rehabilitation philosophy used several arguments to defend correctional treatment. These authors attempted to refute the idea proposed by Martinson (1975) that nothing really worked in rehabilitation of offenders. The idea that rehabilitation had never been given adequate funding in the American correctional system was often raised to defend treatment in corrections. Treatment has also been justified as a necessary part of any humane correctional system as well as an idea too compelling to abandon (Bartollas, 1985). Most criticism of rehabilitation philosophy was based on Robert Martinson's review of over 200 treatment programs from which he concluded correctional treatment did not work (1975).
An analysis of Martinson's study and conclusions, however,
indicates the following positive aspects of rehabilitation theory:
1. Martinson cites individual counseling as an effective
therapeutic technique that reduced recidivism in several studies. Martinson noted there was some hope in treating properly selected subjects if individual therapy was conducted by trained social workers,
2. Martinson stated in his original conclusions that group
counseling was effective if subjects were amenable to treatment and when counselors were trained in counseling techniques.
3. Martinson found intensive probation or parole supervision provided encouraging reports of rehabilitation and further indicated that specially supervised cases appeared to function well in the community.




At least 39 individual studies (48% of those evaluated by Martinson) were associated with positive or partly positive recidivism rates. Of the remaining studies, 4% had ambiguous results and 49% showed negative or no reduction in recidivism. When viewed in terms of treatment approaches and settings, a greater number of favorable results are mentioned by Martinson in relation to use of probation with intensive supervision rather than prison. The results were about equal in the case of group counseling within residential settings and psychotherapy within the community. The setting in which treatment occurred was related to results; lower security of imprisonment resulted in lower recidivism upon release. Caseworker characteristics were also associated with a reduction in recidivism. Inmate characteristics, however, were not linked to success in program. The notion that lower security classification related to lower rates of recidivism was not, however, evidence to suggest efficacy of rehabilitation treatment. Low security classification possibly reflected demonstrated adjustment to prison not attributable to any treatment effect. Prior criminal behavior may have been evidence to suggest a more law-abiding life-style and, therefore, positively influenced security classification and criminal recidivism.
The efficacy of correctional treatment was questioned by authors other than Martinson. As early as 1966, Walter Bailey reported results of 100 evaluations of treatment programs and concluded there was little evidence to suggest effectiveness of co=ectional treatment. He suggested that one or more of the following reasons




explained this ineffectiveness: the treatment in and of itself was not effective, the treatment was not effective in a prison, and treatment was based on incorrect assumptions regarding causes of criminality. Bailey's conclusions appeared highly speculative with no mention made of specific characteristics of treatment programs or their populations.
Robison and Smith (1971) reviewed 75 treatment programs and
concluded there was no evidence to indicate a reduction in recidivism rates. As was the case with Bailey (1966), conclusions were not based on empirical data but were subjective opinions based on reports from surveyed programs. In both studies, follow-up data concerning the nature of recidivism were not gathered. No indication of any pattern of criminal behavior was used to evaluate program efficacy. For example, revocation of parole may have been due to failure to secure employment rather than criminal behavior. However, a six-year study of treatment in California prisons which included a three-year, postrelease follow-up of 1,000 inmates concluded that treatment had a negative impact on participants because (a) they were more hostile to staff than those in the control group, (b) committed more serious prison rule infractions, (c) violated parole more frequently, (d) stayed out of prison a shorter time before violating parole, and
(e) committed more serious crimes than their commitment offenses while on parole (Serrill, 1976).
Gendreau and Ross (1979) reviewed literature published between 1973 and 1978 regarding treatment programs and found 86% of the 95




intervention studies reported success. In these programs more stringent research methods were used to evaluate correctional treatment. Of the studies, 33-- were random sample experiments, 23% employed baseline comparisons, and 23% used matched comparison groups. Most of the successful programs emphasized modifying inappropriate behavior. According to Gendreau and Ross, this 86% success rate is convincing evidence that some rehabilitation programs work when properly designed and staffed.
Advocates of correctional treatment have asserted that rehabilitation had not been given adequate support to determine effectiveness. Halleck and Witte noted, in 1977, that correctional rehabilitation programs have generally been underfunded, understaffed, and carried out in settings far from ideal. Programs of limited duration and quality were expected to produce similar effects on the lives of those under treatment. Supporters of rehabilitation noted that programs were so few they could only serve a small minority of inmates. Petersilia (1980)~ reported findings of a national survey revealing no more than 40% of inmates in state prisons participated in any treatment program while incarcerated and only 10% of inmates with identified needs in prison received treatment related to those needs.
The Mentally Retarded Offender
Results of the review of research about the mentally retarded offender are presented in Table 2. Nineteen studies met the final selection criteria and were included in the analysis. Twelve of the reports were based on data-based research with the majority using




ex post facto analysis and descriptions of existing records. Seven of the works were opinion pieces and were included in the analysis based on their wide acceptance in the field of corrections and the mentally retarded offender.
Prevalence of the Mentally Retarded Offender
Estimates of prevalence of mental retardation for adults over 19 in the general population range from .2 to 2.4% (Tarjan, Wright, Eyman, & Keenan, 1973). There is considerable disagreement about prevalence of mental retardation in the nation's prison population. Several investigators since the late 1960s have suggested that prevalence of retarded offenders in the total offender population is much higher (Brown & Courtless, 1970; Reichard, Spencer, & Spooner, 1982). Using national surveys, Haskins and Friel (1973) found a rate of 4.1% while Brown~ and Courtless (1971) found the rate to be
9.5%. The higher rate of 9.5% resulted from an average of rates ranging from 2.6% in western states to 24.3% in the southeastern states. State surveys have reported prevalence rates that varied from a low of 7.9% (South Carolina Department of Corrections, 1980) to a high of 39.6% (Atlanta Association for Retarded Citizens, 1975).
There are several possible explanations for confusion in this area. A major dimension of mental retardation is subaverage general intellectual functioning (Grossman, 1983). A number of psychometric explanations for variability in prevalence rates have been suggested. These included group as opposed to individual testing, circumstances and time under which the tests were given, and the type of professional




Table 2

Characteristics of the Mentally Retarded Offender

Author(s)/ Type of Dependent Independent
Year Study Subjects Variable Variable Major Conclusions

Brown & Courtless, 1968
Brown & Courtless, 1970
Brown & Courtless, 1971
Giagiari, 1971

Manne & Rosenthal, 1971

Ex post facto

Ex post facto description

Survey

Opinion

Ex post facto description

n=430 inmates
n=1, 209 inmates

n=50 state prison systems

none

n=792 inmates

Criminal history

Age, race, employment status
Prevalence of mental retardation, criminality

none

IQ, age

Mental retardation
Mental retardation
Mental retardation

none

Mental retardation

Mentally retarded criminals committed crimes against people most frequently
Typical retarded inmate 29-34 years old, black, unemployed prior to prison
Prevalence of retardation in inmate population was 9.5%, retarded most often committed crimes of theft and burglary
Conditions associated with mental retardation resulted in disproportionate numbers of mentally retarded criminals being convicted and imprisoned
Mentally retarded inmates were older than nonretarded inmates in Kentucky prisons




Table 2--Continued

Author(s)/ Type of Dependent Independent
Date Study Subjects Variable Variable Major Conclusions

Haggerty, Kane, & Udall, 1972
Haskins & Friel, 1973

Menolascino, 1974

Atlanta, 1975

Kentucky Legislative Research Commission, 1975

Opinion

Ex post facto description

Opinion

Ex post facto description

Ex post facto description

none

none

n=981 inmates in Texas

none

n=14,382 inmates in Georgia prison system

n=1,642 inmates Kentucky prison system

none

Age, race, employment, income level, prevalence

none

Age, race, employment status, prevalence, criminality
Age, race, employment, number of escape tries, criminality, length of sentence

Mental retardation

none

Mental retardation

Mental Retardation

Characteristics of mental retardation caused higher conviction rates than for nonretarded criminals
Typical retarded inmate 27-34 years old, nonwhite, unemployed prior to prison, income less than 5,000/year, prevalence was 4.1%
Characteristics of mental retardation cause poor adjustment to prison
Typical retarded inmate 28-31 years old, nonwhite, unemployed prior to prison, prevalence for retardation was 39.6%, retarded most often had record of crime against people
Typical retarded inmate 26 to 32 years old, nonwhite, unemployed prior to prison, less likely to attempt escape than nonretarded, were most often committed for crimes against people, served more of sentence than nonretarded prisoner




Table 2--Continued

Author(s)/ Type of Dependent Independent
Date Study Subjects Variable Variable Major Conclusions

McGovern, 1976
Rowan, 1976
Santamour & West, 1977

MacEachron, 1978

Santamour & West, 1978

South Carolina Department of Correction 1980

Opinion Opinion

Survey

Literature review

Opinion

Ex post facto description

none none

n=960 mentally retarded offenders

n=17 studies of mentally retarded offenders

none

n=12,971 inmates

none none

none none

Disposition of criminal cases in court
Sex, age, race, employment prevalence

none

Sex, age,
race, prevalence

Mental retardation

Mental retardation

none

Mental retardation

Characteristics of mental retardation cause poor adjustment to prison
Characteristics of mental retardation cause poor adjustment to prison
59% pleaded guilty, 8% had no attorney, 84% made no appeals
Typical retarded inmate was male, 28-31 years old, unemployed prior to prison, income less than 4,000/year, prevalence higher when more complete testing done
Characteristics of mental retardation result in poor adaptation to prison
Typical retarded inmate was male, 27-34 years old, non-white, prevalence was 7.9% for mental retardation




Table 2--Continued

Author(s)/ Type of Dependent Independent
Date Study Subjects Variable Variable Major Conclusions
Overby, Ex post facto n=469 Age Mental Mentally retarded inmates were
1982 description inmates retardation incarcerated at an earlier
age than onretarded inmates
for similar crimes
Soskin, Ex post facto n=l,211 Length of Mental Mentally retarded inmates
1982 description inmates sentence retardation served longer in prison than
nonretarded inmates
Reichard, Review of none none none Retarded were incarcerated
Spencer, & literature/ for property offenses
Spooner, opinion
1982




who administered the test (Haskins & Friel, 1973; Santamour & West, 1977). Santamour and West (1977) noted circumstances surrounding intelligence testing of new prisoners involved significant emotional stress as testing was often conducted within two weeks of commitment to prison. They suggested that more realistic testing situations resulted in a lower prevalence of mentally retarded prisoners. Haskins and Friel (1973) reported that intelligence testing was frequently administered by poorly trained personnel who lacked skills and experience interpreting and scoring these instruments.
The variability of prevalence rates in these studies may be a
function of the population base used to estimate prevalence and the way mental retardation is defined and operationalized. It appears that differences in population bases affect prevalence estimates. Rates tended to be higher when based on total offender populations than when based only on new admissions to prison. Investigators of the Atlanta Association for Retarded Citizens (1975) examined this possibility and concluded that rates based on new admissions in the Georgia Department of Corrections were consistently lower by 4 to 7% than were those based on total population of inmates. Prevalence rates also tended to be higher when all offenders had taken an intelligence test (39.6% from the Georgia Department of Offender Rehabilitation) than when only some proportion of all offenders was tested (7.9% from the South Carolina Department of Corrections, 1980). MacEachron (1978) compared prevalence rates from a state that gave intelligence




tests to all offenders and those from a state that did not and found the rate higher in the state administering to all prisoners. In this study uniform testing of all prisoners appeared to more completely identify those with mental retardation and, therefore, increased the observed proportion in the population. This finding supported the suggestion that a source of variability in prevalence rates may be the method used to determine which inmates are labeled retarded.
Since institutional records of offenders are the primary source of information for survey research, the general lack of data on adaptive behavior skills prior to incarceration or age when the developmental disability occurred necessitated reliance on intelligence tests to assess mental retardation. This limitation must be given careful consideration in selection of tests and in
interpretation of test scores. Since the means and standard deviations of most intelligence tests differ, comparison of scores from different sources requires use of standard z scores, i.e., scores expressed in standard deviations from the mean. Use of standard z scores is also in agreement with the American Association on Mental Deficiency's recommended method of operationalizing intellectual functioning in terms of units of standard deviation (Grossman, 1983).
The large variability of prevalence rates may be explained,
therefore, either by variety of tests used or by use of unadjusted test scores rather than z scores. The impact of using different tests has been reported in two studies. The Atlanta Association for




Retarded Citizens reported in 1975 that Georgia's prevalence rate dropped by eight percentage points the first year after changing diagnostic intelligence tests. Haskins and Friel (1973) found that when four intelligence tests were given to the same group of offenders in the Texas Department of Corrections, prevalence rates varied from 7 to 23.4%. Since recognized intelligence tests were used in both studies the results suggested that use of unadjusted scores rather than z scores to identify mental retardation accounted for the variability of prevalence rates. MacEachron (1978) investigated this by comparing prevalence rates based on test scores and on standard z scores and found rates were substantially lower in both the state that administered intelligence tests to all inmates and the state that did not. It was further found that prevalence rates based on z scores were only slightly higher than the estimated range of retarded adults in the general population (Tarjan et al., 1973). Characteristics of the Mentally Retarded Offender
Brown and Courtless (1970) noted three phases in the development of theories concerning characteristics of the mentally retarded offender. From 1890 to 1920, theorists felt that mental retardation predisposed an individual to commit criminal acts and attempted to link mental retardation and criminality with poverty, insanity, and moral and physical degeneration (Haskins & Friel, 1973). Close to the onset of World War 1, intelligence testing was begun. This represented an attempt to discriminate between mental retardation and criminal behavior. Investigators concluded in the early 1900s that the number of criminals falling in the retarded range was high (Menolascino, 1974).




The second period of time to which Brown and Courtless referred was 1921 to 1960. Theorists during this period questioned whether, in fact, mental retardation predisposed an individual to criminal behavior. The view was adopted that levels of intelligence must be considered within their environmental context (Lane & Witty, 1935). For the first time an attempt was made to relate social factors to intelligence levels, a move away from constitutional explanations offered by investigators such as Lomastro (1976).
Current research findings regarding characteristics of the
mentally retarded offender are mixed although there appears to be less reluctance to associate retardation with criminality than was the case in the 1940s and 1950s. Reichard et al. (1982) noted that a growing awareness of disproportionate numbers of mentally retarded offenders involved with the criminal justice system may represent an administrative function of the system rather than evidence for a causal relationship between mental retardation and criminal behavior.
Social characteristics. Although reported prevalence rates
varied considerably, characteristics of mentally retarded offenders appeared consistent across several studies. Typical mentally retarded offenders were reported to be in their late 20s to early 30s, nonwhite, left school between sixth and ninth grade, achieved a second to third grade equivalency, held low-skill employment, and lived on welfare or below the poverty level (Atlanta Association for Retarded Citizens, 1975; Brown & Courtless, 1970; Haskins & Friel, 1973; Kentucky Legislative Research Commission, 1975).




MacEachron (1978) reviewed studies of mentally retarded offender characteristics which included parolees, probationers, prisoners, and those incarcerated awaiting trial. The author concluded the typical mentally retarded offender was most likely a male in his late 20s or early 30s, a sixth grade dropout, unemployed with few marketable vocational skills, and living below poverty level.
Legal characteristics. A disproportionate number of mentally
retarded offenders appeared to be arrested, convicted, and sentenced. Brown and Courtless surveyed incarcerated mentally retarded offenders in 1970. They found the mentally retarded defendant was not represented by legal counsel in 7.7% of cases. Of mentally retarded offenders, 59% entered pleas of guilty to their charges. Of those entering guilty pleas, the plea was to the original charge in 80% of cases. Confessions were obtained from mentally retarded offenders in 63% of cases. No pretrial psychological examination as to competency was conducted in 78% of cases. No appeals were made in 88% of cases as opposed to 47% in cases involving offenders with normal intelligence. Santamnour and West reported similar results in a 1977 survey:
1. 59% of mentally retarded defendants pleaded guilty to
original charges,
2. 80% of mentally retarded offenders did not attempt plea
bargaining,
3. 8% of all mentally retarded offenders were not represented
by counsel at any time,




4. 66%' of mentally retarded offenders confessed to original
crimes,
5. issues of competency were not raised in 92% of
cases, and
6. no appeals were made in 84% of cases.
Similarly, Giagiari (1971) noted that mentally retarded suspects confessed more easily, reacted more readily to friendly suggestions, were more easily intimidated, and pleaded guilty more often than offenders with normal intelligence. Haggerty, Kane, and Udall (1972) reported characteristics of retardation often did not allow them to adequately help in their own defense. The mentally retarded offenders lacked ability to remember details, locate witnesses, and testify credibly. The conclusions of Haggerty et al. (1972) supported conclusions of Haskins and Friel (1973) that characteristics and behavior of the mentally retarded assured a disproportionate number being arrested, convicted, and incarcerated. Mentally retarded offenders committed crimes similar to others brought into the criminal justice system. They were, however, more likely to be arrested and convicted.
Criminal history. Glueck and Glueck theorized as early as 1943 that types of crimes committed by the mentally retarded were different from those of nonretarded criminals. Several authors noted that mentally retarded offenders committed crimes against persons more frequently than against property (Atlanta Association for Retarded Citizens, 1975; Brown & Courtless, 1968; Kentucky Legislative Research




Commission, 1975). Offenses for narcotics, escape, or parole violation were infrequent (Atlanta Association for Retarded Citizens, 1975). No studies investigated severity of offenses committed by mentally retarded offenders despite the fact that type of offense is often a critical issue in consideration for parole (Talarico, 1982). Brown and Courtless (1971) found mentally retarded offenders committed crimes of burglary and theft most frequently. Tt was suggested the mentally retarded offender often had a history of non-violent offenses resulting in incaraceration deemed necessary to halt further criminal activity rather than protect society from violence (Reichard et al., 1982).
Contradictions were also apparent regarding length of sentence. The Georgia Department of Offender Rehabilitation and the Kentucky Legislative Research Commission concluded that mentally retarded offenders received sentences from two to eight years longer than nonretarded offenders. Haskins and Friel (1973), however, noted no difference between sentences of retarded and nonretarded inmates in the Texas Department of Corrections. The Mentally Retarded Offender in Prison
Problems of overcrowding, increased criminal behavior, violence, and sexual abuse exist in most prison systems. They are frequently compounded by the presence of the mentally retarded offender. Brown and Courtless (1970) reported that departments of corrections often faced staffing problems and were not able to provide the individual services and protections required by the mentally retarded offender.




When special attempts were made to provide adequate staff to address needs of the mentally retarded offender, manpower was diverted from the rest of the population.
Other unique problems were posed to prison administrators by mentally retarded offenders. The South Carolina Department of Corrections (1980) reported mentally retarded offenders and the prison system suffered from the presence of this group. In a survey of correctional officers and inmates, mentally retarded offenders were reported to be frequently abused, exploited, and manipulated by more intelligent inmates. Mentally retarded prisoners were perceived to be highly impressionable and learned criminal behaviors of which they were previously naive. The correctional system was reported to suffer from the retarded offender's presence due to their deficiencies in ability to function independently, comprehend regulations and procedures, and the continual need to be protected from brighter inmates. The presence of the mentally retarded prisoner intensified problems of an already overburdened prison system. The conclusions drawn by the investigators in this study, however, are problematic. The perceptions measured did not necessarily reflect adaptive behavior of mentally retarded prisoners. Attitudes and preferences were not based on empirical data or limited to those having direct contact with mentally retarded prisoners.
Several authors suggested that mentally retarded inmates differ in some characteristics from the normal inmate population. Haskins and Friel (1973) indicated that because retarded offenders remained




longer in institutions, they were older than their nonretarded peers by two years. Hanne and Rosenthal (1971) noted 55.4% of mentally retarded inmates in the Kentucky Department of Corrections were 28 years or older, whereas 43.0% of the nonretarded population fit this category. Furthermore, a significant relationship between age at first incarceration and IQ was found. Mentally retarded offenders were incarcerated at an earlier age than nonretarded counterparts (Overby, 1982). Mentally retarded offenders were found to be disproportionately members of minority groups. Haskins and Friel (1973) concluded that two-thirds of mentally retarded prison inmates were black, while only one-third of the nonretarded group was black. Brown and Courtless (1971) reported that 58% of prison inmates with IQs below 55 were nonwhite.
Length of sentence. The mentally retarded offender differed
from nonretarded prisoners in length of incarceration (Reichard et al., 1982; Soskin, 1982). Of mentally retarded inmates in the Kentucky Department of Corrections, 42% had served more than three years of their present sentence as opposed to 23.5% of nonretarded. Several reasons were proposed for this disparity. They were (a) inability of the retarded offender to finish programs that were required for consideration for parole, (b) nature of offenses for which the retarded offender is incarcerated, and (c) higher incidence of rule infractions (Kentucky Legislative Research Commission, 1975). Haskins and Friel (1973) agreed with these conclusions. They stated the mentally retarded were often unable to present defined employment




and residential plans in consideration for parole. Inability to establish employment has been reported as a major obstacle to the mentally retarded offender gaining parole (Talarico, 1982).
Behavior while incarcerated. Behavior of inmates is often
cited as indicative of adjustment to incarceration (Bartollas, 1985). Adjustment to incarceration is an important prerequisite to consideration for parole (Sacks & Logan, 1984). Disciplinary infractions while incarcerated are the most frequent reason to deny parole (Talarico, 1982). Prison behavior and obtaining parole, therefore, are the main indicators of successful adjustment to prison. Several authors have proposed that rehabilitation of mentally retarded offenders may be enhanced by increased use of parole (Friel, 1976; Smith, Reichard, & Nunnery, in press; Soskin, 1982). MacEachron (1978) postulated that the inmate's disciplinary record influenced success or failure to gain parole. McGovern (1976) found the mentally retarded prisoner often was hampered in adjustment to prison by inability to tolerate frustration or delay gratification, poor impulse control, and cyclical motivation. Further complications for prison adjustment resulted from the retarded offender's propensity to be easily manipulated by more intelligent inmates (Menolascino, 1974; Rowan, 1976; Santamour & West, 1978).
The mentally retarded offender was found slower to adjust to
prison routine than the nonretarded inmate and often had difficulty comprehending what was expected of him resulting in more frequent rule infractions (Santamour & West, 1978). They were frequently the brunt




of practical jokes and often used as scapegoats or sexual objects by more intelligent peers (Reichard et al., 1982). Haskins and Friel (1973) postulated these factors accounted for a higher level of disciplinary reports for mentally retarded inmates. This notion was not supported, however, by data on inmate behavior in prison.
Summary
The idea that mentally retarded individuals benefit from educational and vocational programs designed to account for intellectual and behavioral deficits caused by retardation is well documented in the literature (Blackhurst & Berdine, 1981; Chinn et al., 1979; Haring, 1979). The benefit of differential treatment in education has been based on demonstrated differences in the characteristics of mentally retarded and nonretarded individuals (Chinn et al., 1979). Unique characteristics of the mentally retarded offender often led investigators to assume that differential treatment in prison also is beneficial (Haskins & Friel, 1973; Santamour & West, 1978). These characteristics include the following:
1. The mentally retarded offender is arrested, convicted, and incarcerated in disproportionate numbers (Brown & Courtless, 1981; Reichard et al., 1982).
2. The mentally retarded offender is more often male, underemployed, and less educated than the nonretarded offender (Brown & Courtless, 1971; Reichard et al., 1982).
3. The mentally retarded offender committed crimes against
people more often than crimes against property (Brown & Courtless, 1968).




4. The mentally retarded offender served more time in prison than did the nonretarded offender (Reichard et al., 1982; Soskin, 1982).
5. The mentally retarded offender was often unable to adapt to prison routine, rules, and expectations resulting in more adjustment and discipline problems (Brown & Courtless, 1971; Haskins & Friel, 1973).
It was frequently proposed that differential treatment of the mentally retarded offender was needed to facilitate rehabilitation (Brown & Courtless, 1971; Haskins & Friel, 1973; Reichard et al., 1982; Soskin, 1982). The criminal justice system, however, has been slow to recognize the need for differential treatment of the mentally retarded offender (Santamour & West, 1982). The theory that differential treatment is required to rehabilitate mentally retarded offenders has been based largely on assumptions that characteristics of mental retardation, including adaptive behavior deficits, affect inmate behavior. Studies that reported characteristics of mentally retarded offenders and included adaptive behavior in prison are not present in the literature. If resources are to be used to support differential treatment of the mentally retarded inmate, it is important to determine if their adaptive behavior differs from the nonretarded inmate.




CHAPTER III
METHODS
Methods of the study are presented in this chapter. The
chapter is divided into six sections, i.e., subjects, procedures, independent variable, dependent variables, data analysis, and summary. This study was an ex post facto description and comparison of the adaptive behavior of mentally retarded and nonretarded prison inmates in the Florida Department of Corrections prison system. An ex post facto design was used because the independent variable of mental retardation was present prior to this study and, therefore, not subject to experimental manipulation.
Data on inmate characteristics and behavior were supplied by the Florida Department of Corrections computerized management information system. Records were supplied by the Department of Corrections for inmates incarcerated from 1976 through 1985. Inmates were divided into three groups for this investigation and selected as mentally retarded or nonretarded based on results of intelligence testing conducted by the Department of Corrections.
Subj ects
Assignment as mentally retarded or nonretarded was based on IQ score using the following criteria. The Otis-Lennon Mental Ability




Test has a mean score of 100, standard deviation of 16, and standard error of measurement of 4. It is the practice of the Florida Department of Corrections to operationalize mental retardation as intellectual functioning of at least two standard deviations below the mean of the Otis-Lennon Mental Ability Test.
Group 1 (mentally retarded) was drawn from the population of 2,651 cases with IQ scores of 68 or below. Variables of age, sex, and commitment offense were used to sample what was the "typical" or most frequently occurring mentally retarded inmate. The mean age of inmates with IQs below 68 was determined to be 28 years with a standard deviation of 6.8. Inmates whose age was within -plus or minus one standard deviation of the mean were used. The most frequently occurring sex in the population of inmates with IQ scores below 68 was male (91%) and the commitment offense most frequently found in this population was burglary (41%). A computer generated cross tabulation of these variables resulted in a sample size for Group 1 of 439 cases. Group 2 (matched nonretarded) consisted of 439 cases from the population of 23,842 inmates with IQ scores of 84 or above that met the same criteria as Group 1, i.e., age between 21 and 35 years, male, and committed to prison for burglary. Group 3 (unmatched nonretarded) included inmates from the population with scores above 84. Group 3, however, was not matched with Group 1 as to commitment offense, sex, or age. Group 3 was comprised of the "typical" or most frequently occurring inmate in the population of 23,842 with IQ scores above 84 regardless of age, sex, or commitment




offense. Group 3 consisted of 439 cases randomly selected from this population. Descriptive data are reported for all groups regarding prior criminal history, race, average tested grade level, tested reading level, employment status, and family history at time of commitment (see Chapter IV).
Procedures
The efficacy of programming for adaptive behavior deficits of mentally retarded prison inmates in the Florida Department of Corrections was investigated in this study. The Florida Department of Corrections maintains that adaptive behavior deficits of the retarded prisoner are best addressed by treating them in the same manner prescribed for normal inmates. If programming based on this practice works to compensate for adaptive behavior deficits, no differences would be expected between behavior of mentally retarded and nonretarded inmates.
Two tasks were proposed to investigate this problem. The purpose of task 1 was to identify the manner and frequency with which adaptive behavior was provided for in the Florida Department of Corrections rehabilitation plans for mentally retarded inmates. The purpose of task 2 was to see if differences existed in adaptation to prison regime between mentally retarded and nonretarded inmates as measured by disciplinary reports in prison.
Task 1. Adaptive behavior has been defined as the effectiveness or degree with which an individual meets standards of personal independence and social responsibility expected for age and cultural




group (Chinn et al., 1979). The definition of mental retardation includes deficits in adaptive behavior. Adaptive behavior deficits are often quantified by use of rating scales for adaptive behavior.
The Vineland Social Maturity Scale (VSIIS) (Coll, 1953) is
perhaps the most widely known and widely used device for assessment of social competence and adaptive behavior. The VSMS assesses 117 behaviors clustered into eight aspects of social competence.
The American Association on Mental Deficiency (AAMD) developed an instrument specifically for the evaluation of adaptive and maladaptive behavior, the MAMD Adaptive Behavior Scale (ABS). The ABS is described as also being appropriate for individuals who are mentally retarded or emotionally disturbed. This instrument assesses the individual's effectiveness in adapting to natural and social demands of the environment. Several factors are evaluated, such as self-abusive behavior, destructive behavior, sexually aberrant behavior, and independent functioning.
A list of areas of adaptive behavior common to The Vineland Social Maturity Scale and the MAMD Adaptive Behavior Scale was formulated by examining each instrument and subjectively grouping common areas. These areas of adaptive behavior were limited to those relevant to, or observable in, prison systems.
The Florida Department of Corrections formulates an individual rehabilitation plan for each inmate committed to prison. This plan addresses areas specific to the needs of each inmate. Educational programs, vocational training, counseling referrals, recreation plans,




and behavior, among others, are addressed for each inmate as deemed appropriate by classification specialists within the prison.
Task 1 addressed the frequency and manner with which adaptive behavior of mentally retarded inmates was accounted for by the Florida Department of Corrections. The sample size of Group 1 (mentally retarded) was 439. A random sample of 44, or 10%, from Group 1 was selected. The rehabilitation plans for this sample were reviewed and analyzed to determine which, if any, provisions for adaptive behavior were made to account for adaptive behavior areas common to the AAMD and Vineland scales. In cases where adaptive behavior was addressed in the rehabilitation plan, specific programs used to compensate for adaptive behavior deficits were noted.
Task 2. The Florida Department of Corrections monitors inmate adjustment to prison through a record of disciplinary infractions compiled during incarceration. Disciplinary infractions provide a measure of behavior in areas such as aggression, compliance with authority, narcotics and alcohol abuse, and adherence to prison rules.
Mentally retarded inmates are not treated in special programs. They are expected to comply with the same rules and regulations as all other inmates in the department. The Florida Department of Corrections believes this philosophy has a normalizing effect for mentally retarded prisoners and considers it to be an advantage in their treatment. If this philosophy works in the desired manner, there should be no differences in group behavior between mentally retarded and nonretarded inmates. The design schema is presented in Table 3.




Table 3 Design Schema

Group Independent Variable Dependent Variable

Group 1 (X) mentally retarded Group 2 (Xl) matched nonretarded

Group 3 (X2) unmatched nonretarded

Yl(number DRs: disobeying orders) Y2(number DRs: attempted escape) Y3(number DRs: assaulting
correctional officer)
Y4(number DRs: assaulting an
inmate)
Y5(number DRs: possession of
narcotics)
Y6(number DRs: possession of
alcohol)
Y7(number DRs: failure to
maintain personal hygiene)
Y1(number DRs: disobeying orders) Y2(number DRs: attempted escape) Y3(number DRs: assaulting a
correctional officer)
Y4(number DRs: assaulting an
inmate)
Y5(number DRs: possession of
narcotics)
Y6(number DRs: possession of
alcohol)
Y7(number DRs: failure to
maintain personal hygiene)
Yl(number DRs: disobeying orders) Y2(number DRs: attempted escape) Y3(number DRs: assaulting a
correctional officer)
Y4(number DRs: assaulting an
inmate)
Y5(number DRs: possession of
narcotics)
Y6(number DRs: possession of
alcohol)
Y7(number DRs: failure to
maintain personal hygiene)




The following null hypotheses were derived as a measure of inmate behavior:
Ho 1: There is no significant difference in the number of
disciplinary reports received for disobeying orders
between mentally retarded and nonretarded inmates.
Ho 2: There is no significant difference in the number of
disciplinary reports received for attempted escape between mentally retarded and nonretarded inmates,
Ho 3: There is no significant difference in the number of
disciplinary reports for assaulting a correctional officer between mentally retarded and nonretarded
inmates.
Ho 4: There is no significant difference in the number of
disciplinary reports received for assaulting an inmate
between mentally retarded and nonretarded inmates.
Ho 5: There is no significant difference in the number of
disciplinary reports received for possession of
narcotics between mentally retarded and nonretarded
inmates.
Ho 6: There is no significant difference in number of
disciplinary reports for possession of alcohol between
mentally retarded and nonretarded inmates.
Ho 7: There is no significant difference in number of
disciplinary reports for failure to maintain personal
hygiene between mentally retarded and nonretarded
inmates.




Independent Variable
The independent variable in this study was mental retardation. The Florida Department of Corrections administers a battery of standardized tests to each inmate shortly after incarceration at the Lake Butler Reception and Diagnostic Center. The inmate records contained within the computerized management information system of the Florida Department of Corrections include 26,493 cases who have been given intelligence testing using the Otis-Lennon Mental Ability Test.
The various levels comprising the Otis-Lennon Mental Ability Test were designed to provide comprehensive assessment of the general mental ability of the tested subjects. The Otis-Lennon IQ score is a normalized standard score with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 16 points. The IQ score is an index of the subjects relative mental ability when compared with others having taken the same test.
Dependent Variables
Inmates may be cited for violations of Department of Corrections
-rules or violations of Florida statutes. The Department of Corrections keeps computerized records as to the number of disciplinary infractions compiled for each inmate. This number is reported for each inmate in this study in seven areas.
Disobeying orders. Disciplinary reports for disobeying orders result from disobeying any verbal or written order given by a staff member or from disobeying institutional regulations.
Attempted escape. Disciplinary reports for attempted escape are issued if an inmate is out of an assigned area or off prison grounds without permission.




Assaulting a correctional officer. Disciplinary reports for assaulting a correctional officer are issued if an inmate strikes or threatens physical harm to a correctional officer.
Assaulting an inmate. Disciplinary reports for assaulting an inmate are issued if an inmate strikes or threatens physical harm to another inmate.
Possession of narcotics. Disciplinary reports for possession
of narcotics are issued if an inmate is found to be in possession of any controlled substance other than prescription drugs.
Possession of alcohol. Disciplinary reports for possession of alcohol are issued if an inmate is found to be in possession of any alcoholic beverage.
Failure to maintain personal hygiene. Disciplinary reports for failure to maintain personal hygiene are issued if an inmate fails to maintain acceptable hygiene or appearance of housing area.
Data Analysis
Computerized data supplied by the Office of Planning, Research,
and Statistics of the Florida Department of Corrections were used in this investigation. Meetins were held with representatives of the Department of Corrections and permission to secure and analyze these data for purposes of the study was granted. The Department of Corrections supplied data, on computer tape, for 26,493 prisoners. The data were transferred and analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS).




Group means for number of disciplinary reports received by
mentally retarded and nonretarded inmates were calculated and compared to test each hypothesis. One-way analysis of variance was used to determine significance among groups. Tukey's test was used to determine pairwise significance between groups. The .05 level of probability was used in all hypothesis testing.
Summary
Adaptive behavior of mentally retarded prison inmates was
investigated in this study. Characteristics of adaptive behavior that relate to prison populations were compared with rehabilitation plans of selected mentally retarded inmates in the Florida Department of Corrections. Disciplinary records of mentally retarded and nonretarded inmates were compared to determine if differences exist in adjustment to prison.




CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
Results of the study are presented in Chapter IV. Adaptive behavior of mentally retarded prison inmates incarcerated in the Florida Department of Corrections was investigated in this study. Two tasks were completed to investigate this problem. The purpose of task 1 was to identify the manner and frequency that adaptive behavior was provided for in the Florida Department of Corrections rehabilitation plans for mentally retarded inmates. The purpose of task 2 was to see if differences existed in adaptation to prison regime between mentally retarded and nonretarded inmates as measured by disciplinary reports in prison. The chapter includes descriptive
statistics on the samples used for each group, results of task 1 regarding the frequency and manner that the Florida Department of Corrections addresses adaptive behavior of mentally retarded inmates, and results of task 2 regarding the number of disciplinary reports for each group.
Descriptive Statistics
Group 1 (mentally retarded inmates) was drawn from the population of 2,651 cases with IQ scores of 68 or below. In an attempt to sample what was the "typical" or most frequently occurring mentally retarded




inmate in this population, the variables of age, sex, and commitment offense were used. The mean age of inmates with IQs below 68 was determined to be 28 years with a standard deviation of 6.8. Inmates whose age was within plus or minus one standard deviation of the mean were used. The most frequently occurring sex in the population of inmates with IQ scores below 68 was male (91%) and the commitment offense most frequently found in this population was burglary (41%). A computer generated cross tabulation of these variables resulted in a sample size for Group 1 of 439 cases.
Group 2 (matched nonretarded) consisted of 439 cases from the population of 23,842 inmates with IQ scores of 84 or above that met the same criteria as Group 1, i.e., age between 21 and 35 years, male, and committed to prison for burglary. Group 3 (unmatched nonretarded) included inmates from the population with scores above 84. Group 3, however, was not matched with Group 1 as to commitment offense, sex, or age. Group 3 was comprised of the "typical" or most frequently occurring inmate in the population of 23,842 with IQ scores above 84 regardless of age, sex, or commitment offense. Group 3 consisted of 439 cases randomly selected from this population. Demographic Characteristics
Characteristics of race, prior narcotics use, prior alcohol use,
employment status at arrest, and marital status at arrest were examined for each group. An independent samples chi-square test was used to determine possible effects of each variable and group assignment. Frequencies for demographic characteristics and results of chi-square tests are presented in Table 4.




Table 4
Demographic Characteristics of Sample Groups

Group la Group 2a Group 3a
Variable Frequency Frequency Frequency X2 df
Race
White 217 49% 222 50% 214 49% 8.008 6
Black 201 46% 187 42% 209 48%
Other 8 1% 12 2% 10 2%
Hispanic 13 3% 18 4% 6 1%
Prior narcotics use
Light use 189 43% 177 40% 171 39% 3.852 4
Heavy use 79 18% 68 15% 72 16%
No use 171 39% 194 44% 196 45%
Prior alcohol use
Light use 302 69% 318 72% 309 70% 4.219 4
Heavy use 84 19% 62 14% 71 16%
No use 53 12% 59 13% 59 13%
Employment status
at arrest
Full-time 172 39% 238 54% 230 52% 61.271* 4
Part-time 101 23% 128 29% 121 28%
Unemployed 165 39% 73 17% 88 20%
Marital status
at arrest
Married 188 43% 203 46% 215 49% 3.352 2
Single 251 57% 236 54% 224 51%

an=439 for each group.
*significant at the .05

level.




Race. Racial makeup for each group included white, black, Hispanic, and other. The Florida Department of Corrections categorizes Oriental and American Indian inmates as "other." Examination of the raw data suggested that each sample group was comprised of approximately equal numbers from each racial category. Each group contained approximately equal proportions of white, black, and Hispanic inmates. The obtained X2=8.832, df=6, was not significant at the .05 level.
Prior narcotics use. The Florida Department of Corrections
records data on prior narcotics use for each inmate. The accuracy of these data is suspect in that this figure is self-reported by the inmate during routine classification and testing. Narcotics use is categorized as light, heavy, or none. No attempt is made to record types of narcotics used prior to incarceration. There are no guidelines as to what constitutes light or heavy narcotics use other than subjective judgment of the examiner.
Proportions between groups appeared to suggest that self-admitted narcotic use was approximately the same for each sample group. The obtained X2=3.852, df=4, was not significant at the .05 level for
prior narcotics use.
Prior alcohol use. Use of alcohol prior to incarceration is also a self-admitted statistic. Prior alcohol use is categorized as light, heavy, or none, by inmate admission. Type of alcohol used is not recorded. Examination of the raw data suggested approximately the same levels of alcohol use for each group. The obtained X2=4.219, df=4, was not significant at the .05 level.




Employment status at arrest. Data regarding employment status at time of arrest are recorded for each inmate at the time of incarceration. Employment status at the time of arrest is noted since those inmates who are employed often lose their jobs as a result of time spent incarcerated waiting disposition of charges. Categories used by the Department of Corrections include full-time, part-time, and unemployed.
Examination of the raw data indicated that a much greater number of mentally retarded inmates (38%) were unemployed at the time of arrest than nonretarded inmates. The obtained X2=61.271, df=4, was significant at the .05 level.
Marital status at arrest. Inmate marital status is recorded during the evaluation procedure conducted by the Department of Corrections shortly after incaraceration. Marital status is recorded as married or single. Frequencies for each category in each group appear similar. The obtained X2=3.356, df=2, was not significant at the .05 level.
Educational Characteristics of Sample Groups
The Florida Department of Corrections maintains educational data on all inmates regarding age in years, IQ test score, educational attainment prior to incarceration, tested grade level, and literacy reading level. One-way analysis of variance was used to test for significant differences between group means and Tukey's tests were used to determine pairwise differences where appropriate. Group means and standard deviations are presented in Table 5.




Table 5
Educational Characteristics of Sample Groups

Group a Group 2a Group 3a
Variable Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Age (years) 28.2 6.2 28.2 6.2 26.4 5.1
IQ score 61.3 5.2 91.3 9.3 92.7 9.8
Educational
attainment (years) 6.0 0.7 9.3 3.1 9.1 3.3
Average tested
grade level (years) 6.1 3.7 8.4 3.5 9.1 3.2
Literacy reading
level (years) 3.1 1.9 6.2 2.1 6.4 2.3
an=439 for each group.
Age. Age is reported for each sample group. There was no
difference between mean age of Group 1 and Group 2 since they were matched for sampling. Mean age between Group 2 and Group 3 differed by 1.8 years. There was no significant difference between mean age for Group 2 and Group 3.
IQ test score. The mean IQ test score between groups differed
significantly. This was expected since IQ test score reflected mental retardation and was, therefore, used to select for each group. Differences were significant at the .05 level between Group I and Group 2 as well as between Group 1 and Group 3.




Educational attainment. Educational attainment reflects the highest grade completed by each inmate prior to incarceration. The mean attainment for Group 1 (6.0) was significantly different from the mean level of Group 2 (9.3) and Group 3 (9.1). However, no difference was noted between Group 2 and Group 3 at the .05 level of significance.
Average tested grade level. The average tested grade level
reflects results of testing conducted by the Florida Department of Corrections upon incarceration. Significant differences were reported between groups at the .05 level. Group 1 (4.1) was found to be significantly different from both Group 2 (8.4) and Group 3 (9.1) at the .05 level. There was no significant difference between Group 2 and Group 3 for average tested grade level.
Literacy reading level. The literacy reading level represents results, in years, of testing to determine reading level at time of incarceration. The mean reading level for Group 1 (3.1) was found to be significantly different from that of Group 2 (6.2) and Group 3 (6.4). Levels for Group 2 and Group 3 were not significantly different at the .05 level, however.
Criminal History for Sample Groups
Criminal history is recorded by the Department of Corrections
for each inmate as to felony convictions, felony probation sentences, prior felony paroles, prison commitments, misdemeanor convictions, and misdemeanor probations. Means and standard deviations are presented in Table 6.




Group la Group 2a Group 3a
Variable Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Felony 1.10 1.200 1.27 1.300 1.20 1.010
convictions
Felony 0.80 .876 0.60 0.720 0.68 0.800
probations
Felony 0.46 0.520 0.50 0.610 0.48 0.511
paroles
Prior prison 0.91 0.961 0.84 0.911 0.84 0.820
commitments
Misdemeanor 4.26 2.320 4.19 2.670 4.20 2.810
convictions
Misdemeanor 1.20 1.060 2.17 2.230 2.30 2.810
probations
an=439 for each group.
Felony convictions. The mean number of prior felony convictions for all groups was low. Group I had the lowest mean (1.1). Differences between groups were not significant at the .05 level.
Felony probations. The mean rate of prior felony sentences to probation was low for all groups ranging from .68 (Group 3) to .80 (Group 1). Probation sentences for felony offenses is recorded only for cases in the State of Florida. Differences between groups were not significant at the .05 level.

Table 6
Criminal History of Sample Groups




Felony paroles. Parole is the conditional release from prison after completion of a portion of the original sentence. The low mean rates of prior parole tend to result from the low mean rate for prior felony convictions. Both groups of nonretarded inmates had slightly higher rates for prior paroles. Differences between groups, however, were not significant.
Prior prison commitments. The Department of Corrections records prior prison commitments for sentences served in Florida prisons only. The mean rate for both groups of nonretarded inmates was the same (0.8) but did not differ significantly from the rate for the mentally retarded group (1.01).
Misdemeanor convictions. Misdemeanor offenses may range from
minor traffic violations to more serious crimes of theft and assault. The Florida Department of Corrections does not differentiate between severity of misdemeanors. The number of prior misdemeanor offenses for Group 1 was slightly higher (4.2) than Group 2 (4.13 or Group 3 (4.2). No significant differences were found between groups.
Misdemeanor probations. The mean number of prior misdemeanor probation sentences was somewhat higher for the mentally retarded inmates. Significant differences were found between groups at the .05 level. Group 1 was found to differ from Group 2 and Group 3 when pairwise comparisons were tested. There were no differences between Group 2 and Group 3.
Analysis of Adaptive Behavior
Adaptive behavior deficits of mentally retarded prison inmates in the Florida Department of Corrections was investigated in this




study. The Florida Department of Corrections maintains that adaptive behavior deficits of the retarded prisoner are best addressed by treating them in the same manner prescribed for normal inmates. If programming based on this practice works to compensate for adaptive behavior deficits, no differences would be expected between behavior of mentally retarded and nonretarded inmates.
Two tasks were proposed to investigate this problem. The purpose of task I was to identify the manner and frequency that adaptive behavior was provided for in the Florida Department of Corrections rehabilitation plans for mentally retarded inmates. The purpose of task 2 was to see if differences existed in adaptation to prison regime between mentally retarded and nonTetarded inmates as measured by disciplinary reports in prison. Results of Task 1
Task 1 addressed the frequency and manner with which adaptive
behavior of mentally retarded inmates was accounted for by the Florida Department of Corrections. Common areas observable and feasible in a prison setting were matched from major cluster behaviors of the Vineland Social Maturity Scale and the American Association on Mental Deficiency Adaptive Behavior Scale to form a checklist for use in this task. The cluster areas were subjectively drawn from each instrument and grouped into physical appearance and hygiene, communication and socialization skills, vocational skills, independent functioning, and aggression. Cluster areas from each test used to form the checklist used in task I are presented in Table 7.




Table 7
Adaptive Behavior Cluster Skills

Common behavior area Vineland behavior MAMD behavior
for use in task 1 review cluster domain
Physical appearance and Self-help dressing Responsibility
hygiene Independent functioning
Communication and Communication Self-direction
socialization skills Socialization Language development
Vocational skills Occupation Vocational activity
Independent functioning Self-help eating Independent functioning
Self-direction Responsibility
Self-help dressing
Aggression Violent and destructive
behavior

The sample size of Group 1 (mentally retarded inmates) was 439. A random sample of 44, or 10%, from Group 1 was selected. The rehabilitation plans of this sample were reviewed and analyzed to determine which, if any, provisions for adaptive behavior were made to account for adaptive behavior areas common to the AAMD and Vineland scales. Specific programs used to compensate for adaptive behavior deficits were noted in cases where adaptive behavior was addressed in the rehabilitation plan. The results of task 1 are presented in Table 8.




Area of adaptive Frequency noted in Number Program referral
behavior deficit rehabilitation plans referred and adaptation
Physical appearance 31 (72%) 31 Counseling
and hygiene
Communication and 11 (25%) 8 Counseling
socialization skills
Vocational skills 18 (42%) 0 No referral-skill
level noted only
Independent 9 (21%) 9 Counseling
functioning
Aggression 7 (16%) 3 Counseling
Physical appearance and hygiene. Skill deficits involving physical appearance and personal hygiene were noted in 31 cases (72%). Referral for counseling within the prison was the only adaptation used in these plans.
Communication and socialization skills. Deficits in communication and socialization skills were noted in 11 (25%) of cases. Lack of communication or socialization skills were generally seen to mean that the inmate had difficulty expressing himself or complying with appropriate instructions from prison staff. Eight cases were referred for counseling based on a perceived lack of communication and socialization skills.

Table 8 Results of Task 1




Vocational skills. Deficits in vocational skills were noted relative to job complexity, ability to perform various types of work, or the type of vocational preference noted. Vocational deficits were accounted for in 18 of cases (42%).
Independent functioning. Independent functioning was accounted
for by the inmates ability to initiate activities rather than displaying an overdependence on others for direction. An inability to function independently was noted in 9 cases (21%). No special consideration was made to account for lack of ability to function independently.
Aggression. Aggressive behavior was mentioned in 7 rehabilitation plans (16%). Referral was made to prison counseling in 3 of the cases noting aggressive behavior.
Results of Task 2
The purpose of task 2 was to see if differences existed in
adaptation to prison regime between mentally retarded and nonretarded inmates as measured by disciplinary reports in prison. Inferential statistics were used to analyze the data for disciplinary reports in seven categories, the dependent variables. One-way analysis of variance was used to test the significance of each null hypothesis. Tukey's test was used to determine significance between pairs for each group. Results of task 2 are presented in Table 9.
Disobeying orders. The mean number of disciplinary reports received per year for Group 1 inmates was 8.40. Group 2 inmates received an average of 7.90 and Group 3 received 7.86. The F-ratio was 2.62. There were no significant differences between groups for this category. Null hypothesis 1 was accepted.




Table 9
Mean Number of Disciplinary Reports

Group 1a Group 2a Group 3a Summary
Disciplinary Category Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Anova
Statistics

Disobeying orders Attempted escape Assaulting a correctional officer
Assaulting an inmate Possession of narcotics Possession of alcohol Failure to maintain personal hygiene

8.400 0.270
0.426 1.190 0.426 0.381

4.028 0.560 0.810 1.037 0.818 0.830

2.190 2.361

7.910 3.830 0.333 0.720 0.508 0.886 1.353 1.145 1.238b 1.037 1.048b 1.072 0.905b 0.958

7.860 3.720 0.328 0.740 0.558 0.904 1.342 1.102 1.261b 1.105 1.039b 1.074 0.884b 0.951

F(2,1314)=2.620 F(2,1314)=1.714 F(2,1314)=2.578 F(2,1314)=2.507 F(2,1314)=96.362* F(2,1314)=61.902* F(2,1314)=99.62*

an=439 in each group bmeans that share a common superscript are not significantly different.
*significant at .05 level.




Attempted escape. Group I inmates attempted escape at a lower rate (0.273) than Group 2 (0.333) or Group 3 (0.328). Attempted escape is a low incidence infraction which accounts for a small percentage of all disciplinary problems in prison. The between group differences for this category of disciplinary report were not significant at the .05 level. Null hypothesis 2 was accepted.
Assaulting a correctional officer. The average rate for Group 1 inmates (0.4) was less than Group 2 (0.508) or Group 3 (0.558) in this category. Differences between group means for assaulting a correctional officer, however, were not significant at the .05 level. Null hypothesis 3 was accepted.
Assaulting an inmate. The mean number of disciplinary reports received by Group 1 (1.190) was slightly less than the number received by group 2 (1.353) or Group 3 (1.342) for assaulting an inmate. The differences were not significant between groups for this offense. Null hypothesis 4 was accepted.
Possession of narcotics. Group 1 inmates (0.476) received
disciplinary reports at a much lower rate for possession of narcotics than Group 2 (1.238) or Group 3 (1.231) inmates. The calculated F-value was significant at the .05 level. Pairwise comparisons indicated that the difference between Group 1 and Group 2 was significant as well as the difference between Group 1 and Group 3. Null hypothesis 5, therefore, was rejected.
Possession of alcohol. Inmates in Group 1 (0.381) also received disciplinary reports for possession of alcohol at a much lower rate than inmates in Group 2 (1.048) and Group 3 (1.039). Differences




between groups were significant at the .05 level. Null hypothesis 6, therefore, was rejected. Significant differences were found between Group 1 and Group 2 as well as Group 1 and Group 3.
Failure to maintain personal hygiene. Mentally retarded inmates were cited for failure to maintain personal hygiene at a much higher rate than nonretarded inmates in Group 2 or Group 3. The null hypothesis was rejected at the .05 level. Group 1 was significantly different from Group 2 (0.905) and Group 3 (0.884) in pairwise comparisons for this variable.
Summary
Adaptive behavior of mentally retarded prison inmates was analyzed in two tasks. Task 1 investigated the manner and frequency that the Florida Department of Corrections recognized and programmed for adaptive behavior deficits of mentally retarded inmates. A review of records was made to determine accommodations and specialized programs to account for deficits. The method used to program for adaptive behavior deficits was referral to counseling within the prison. Vocational deficits were not addressed with remediative programs. Deficits in vocational areas were handled by assignment to lower skilled jobs within the prison.
Differences in adaptive behavior between mentally retarded and
nonretarded inmates were measured by disciplinary reports received in seven categories. Mentally retarded inmates received significantly more disciplinary reports for failure to maintain personal hygiene than did nonretarded inmates. The inmates in the mentally retarded group received significantly fewer numbers of disciplinary reports for possession of narcotics and possession of alcohol than nonretarded inmates.




CHAPTER V
DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS
The fifth chapter begins with a summary review of the study.
Discussion and implications are presented along with the significance of the study and suggestions for further research.
Review of the Study
The Problem
Florida's prison system does not provide specialized treatment for mentally retarded inmates. It is the practice of the Florida Department of Corrections that deficits in adaptive behavior caused by mental retardation are best addressed by treating mentally retarded inmates in the same manner as inmates with normal intelligence. The Florida Department of Corrections monitors inmate behavior through a record of disciplinary infractions compiled during incarceration. Disciplinary infractions provide a measure of adaptive behavior in areas such as aggression, compliance with authority, narcotics and alcohol abuse, and adherence to prison rules.
If this approach is effective in compensating for adaptive
behavior deficits of mentally retarded prisoners, there should be no group differences in the behavior of retarded and nonretarded




inmates. Therefore, the problem under investigation in this study was, "does the Florida Department of Corrections prison program compensate for postulated adaptive behavior differences between mentally retarded and nonretarded inmates?" Summary of Method
Two tasks were proposed to investigate this problem. The purpose of task 1 was to identify the manner and frequency that adaptive behavior was provided for in rehabilitation plans of mentally retarded inmates. The purpose of task 2 was to see if differences existed in adaptation to prison regime between mentally retarded and nonretarded inmates.
A random sample from Group 1 (mentally retarded inmates) was
selected to complete task 1. The rehabilitation plans of this sample were reviewed and analyzed to determine which, if any, provisions for adaptive behavior were made to account for adaptive behavior areas common to the AAMD and Vineland scales. In cases where adaptive behavior was addressed in the rehabilitation plan, specific programs used to compensate for adaptive behavior deficits were noted.
Group means for the number of disciplinary reports received by mentally retarded and nonretarded inmates in seven categories were calculated and compared to complete task 2. One-way analysis of variance was used to determine significance among groups. Tukey's test was used to determine pairwise significance between groups. Problems and Limitations
There were several problems and limitations that were encountered in this study which should be considered when interpreting these




data. First, the record of disciplinary infractions compiled for each inmate is a subjective measure peculiar to the judgment of individual correctional officers. The lower number received by mentally retarded inmates for disobeying orders may represent a subjective adjustment by correctional officers for the low ability of mentally retarded inmates to comply with prison rules. In fact, the lower rate may represent lowered expectations on the part of officers assigned to enforce prison rules.
Another problem relates to the measure of inmate behavior.
The issuance of disciplinary infractions does nothing to measure the behavior of nonretarded inmates toward the mentally retarded inmate. Several authors have suggested that problems of overcrowding, criminal behavior, and sexual abuse are compounded by the presence of the mentally retarded inmate. Brown and Courtless (1971) reported that departments of corrections often faced severe staffing problems and were not able to provide the individual protection required by the mentally retarded inmate. MacEachron (1978) noted that mentally retarded inmates were often out of step with the dominant characteristics of the average prisoner. The mentally retarded prisoner, therefore, was victimized by more sophisticated inmates and was often the object of physical and sexual aggression. These situations were not measured in this study.
Discussion and Implications
It is widely noted that differential treatment based on adaptive behavior deficits is important to success for the mentally retarded




in academics, employment, and career education (Cegelka & Prehm, 1982; Chinn et al., 1979; Haring, 1979). The notion that differential treatment of mentally retarded prison inmates effects their adjustment to prison and subsequent rehabilitation is also widely noted (Reichard et al., 1982; Santamour & West, 1982). It is not, however, well documented. Descriptive Statistics of Sample Groups
The belief that mentally retarded offenders require differential treatment has been based largely on assumptions about adaptive behavior. These assumptions have often resulted from theories that demographic, education, and criminal characteristics of mentally retarded and nonretarded prisoners were different. The results of this study are mixed regarding differences between mentally retarded and nonretarded inmates.
Demographic characteristics. Similar conclusions about
characteristics of mentally retarded offenders have been reported in several studies. However, demographic data for mentally retarded and nonretarded prisoners were not compared in previous studies (Atlanta Association for Retarded Citizens, 1975; Brown & Courtless, 1970; Haskins & Friel, 1973; Manne & Rosenthal, 1971; South Carolina Department of Corrections, 1980). Typical mentally retarded offenders were reported to be in their late 20s to early 30s, nonwhite, male, left school between sixth and ninth grade, achieved a second to third grade equivalency, held low-skilled employment, and lived below the poverty level.




Demographic characteristics identified in the current research are similar to those reported in previous studies. The typical mentally retarded prisoner incarcerated in the Florida Department of Corrections was 28 years old and not married at the time of arrest. Racial composition was mixed. The large number of nonwhite
inmates reported in several previous studies was not evident. Proportions of white and nonwhite inmates in this study were approximately the same. Characteristics of age, race, and marital status for nonretarded inmates in this study were similar to the mentally retarded sample and did not differ significantly for any group. A comparison of demographic characteristics reported in the literature and results of this study are presented in Table 10.
Characteristics regarding employment for mentally retarded
inmates appear similar to those reported in other studies. Employment status was recorded by the Florida Department of Corrections as full-time, part-time, or unemployed. Data for employment suggested that the mentally retarded group was unemployed at a higher rate than either nonretarded group. The mentally retarded inmates were also employed full or part-time at a lower rate than the nonretarded groups. These differences were significant at the .05 level.
The incidence of prison inmates with no vocational skills has
been estimated to be five times the national average with 90% earning less than $5,000 per year (United States Department of Justice, 1980). Vocational programming and training are an integral part of most prison systems. Vocational training is used as part of inmate




Table 10
Demographic Characteristics Reported for the Mentally

Retarded Offender

Conclusion Reported in the Literature

Age of typical mentally retarded inmate is 26 to 34 years.
(Atlanta Association for Retarded Citizens, 1975; Brown & Courtless,
1970; Haskins & Friel, 1973;
Kentucky Legislative Research Commission, 1975; MacEachron,
1978; South Carolina Department
of Corrections, 1980)
Typical inmate is nonwhite.
(Atlanta Association for Retarded Citizens, 1975; Brown & Courtless,
1970; Haskins & Friel, 1973;
Kentucky Legislative Research Commission, 1975; MacEachron,
1978; South Carolina Department
of Corrections, 1980)
Typical mentally retarded inmate is male.
(Atlanta Association for Retarded Citizens, 1975; Brown & Courtless,
1970; Haskins & Friel, 1973;
Kentucky Legislative Research Commission, 1975; MacEachron,
1978; South Carolina Department
of Corrections, 1980)
Low rates of employment prior to incarceration.
(Atlanta Association for Retarded Citizens, 1975; Brown & Courtless, 1970; Haskins & Friel, 1973; Kentucky Legislative Research Commission, 1975; MacEachron, 1978; South Carolina Department of Corrections, 1980)

Conclusion in This Study

Age of typical mentally retarded inmate is 28 years.
Number of white and nonwhite inmates is approximately the same. No significant difference between groups.
Typical mentally retarded inmate is male.
Mentally retarded inmates were employed full and part-time at lower rate than nonretarded. Differences were statistically significant.




rehabilitation and provides for a more orderly existence within prisons. The low employment rates for mentally retarded inmates across several studies suggest a need for specialized training within the institutions to compensate for low employment.
Data for alcohol and narcotic use by the mentally retarded offender have not appeared in the literature. The Florida Department of Corrections records self-reported alcohol and narcotic use prior to incarceration for each inmate. Prior use of alcohol and narcotics is noted as heavy, light, or none. These data are suspect in that they are self-reported and, therefore, may vary widely. They are also not specific as to types of narcotics or alcohol used nor are they corroborated by any outside source.
Educational characteristics. Low educational attainment for mentally retarded offenders was noted in several works reviewed for this study. The mean IQ for mentally retarded inmates in the Florida Department of Corrections was 61.3 as opposed to 92.7 for nonretarded inmates. Educational attainment prior to incarceration was significantly different between mentally retarded and nonretarded groups. The mean attainment for mentally retarded inmates was 6.0 years as opposed to 9.1 years for nonretarded prisoners. The results of grade-level and reading literacy testing displayed similar differences between mentally retarded and nonretarded groups.
hile these differences were to be expected based on the presence of mental retardation, implications for treatment within the prison system are obvious. Several investigators have demonstrated the




efficacy of differential treatment in academic programming for the mentally retarded (Cegelka &~ Prehm, 1982; Chinn et al., 1979; Haring, 1979). None of the studies reviewed indicated any attempts were made to provide systematic academic -programming based on techniques used to educate the mentally retarded in public school systems. The Florida Department of Corrections does not provide special academic programming designed to account for deficits caused by mental retardation. Similarities and differences between results reported in the literature and this study are presented in Table 11.
Criminal history. Current findings about criminality of the mentally retarded offender are mixed although there appears to be less reluctance to associate retardation with criminality than was the case in the 1940s and 1950s. Reichard et al. (1982) noted that a growing awareness of disproportionate numbers of mentally retarded offenders involved with the criminal justice system may represent an administrative function of the system rather than evidence for a causal relationship between mental retardation and criminal behavior. It was often reported that types of crimes committed by the mentally retarded were different from those of the nonretarded criminal. Several authors noted that mentally retarded offenders committed crimes against persons more frequently than against property (Atlanta Association for Retarded Citizens, 1975; Brown & Courtless, 1968; Kentucky Legislative Research Commission, 1975). Prior criminal rate for mentally retarded offenders was not -reported




Table 11
Educational Characteristics Reported for the Mentally Retarded Offender

Conclusion Reported in the Literature

Low educational attainment
(Atlanta Association for Retarded Citizens, 1975; Brown & Courtless,
1970; Haskins & Friel, 1973;
Kentucky Legislative Research
Commission, 1976; MacEachron, 1976;
South Carolina Department of
Corrections, 1980)
IQ scores
No study reviewed mean IQ for
nonretarded or mentally retarded
inmates.
Tested grade levels and/or reading ability
No study included data for tested grade level or reading ability.

Conclusion in This Study

Average educational attainment for mentally retarded inmate was 6.0 years. Difference between nonretarded groups and mentally retarded group was statistically significant.
M ean IQ score for mentally retarded inmates was 61.3 Mean IQ score for nonretarded inmates was 92.7. Differences were statistically significant.
Grade level testing and reading literacy levels were significantly different between mentally retarded and nonretarded groups.




in any studies despite the fact that this was often a critical issue in consideration for parole (Talarico, 1982).
Differences in criminal behavior for mentally retarded and nonretarded inmates in the present study were not significant. Prior prison commitments and prior probation sentences were also not significantly different. These results suggest that the criminal history for mentally retarded and nonretarded inmates may not differ as reported in other studies. These results also tend to contradict the notion that mentally retarded offenders are more disposed toward criminal behavior than nonretarded prisoners. Conclusions from the literature and results of this study about criminal history are presented in Table 12.
Results of Task 1
Various authors have recommended differential treatment of the mentally retarded offender (Brown & Courtless, 1971; Haskins & Friel, 1973; Santamour & West, 1982). It was often suggested that differential treatment of the mentally retarded inmate, as in education, should be based on adaptive behavior deficits unique to the mentally retarded. Most prison systems in the United States, however, do not attempt to identify these differences or address them in programming for inmates (Santamour & West, 1982). This practice is based on the belief that integration with nonretarded inmates helps in adjustment to prison routine and, ultimately, rehabilitation. The purpose of task 1, therefore, was to determine which, if any, adaptive behavior deficits of mentally retarded inmates were identified by prison




Table 12
Criminal History Reported for the Mentally Retarded Offender

Conclusion Reported in the Literature

Mentally retarded inmates committed most often for crimes against property.
(Brown & Courtless, 1968;
Kentucky Legislative Research
Commission, 1975; Reichard,
Spencer, & Spooner, 1982)
Mentally retarded inmates committed most often for crimes against people.
(Atlanta Association for
Retarded Citizens, 1975; Brown
& Courtless, 1971)
Extent and type of prior criminal record not indicated in any other study.

Conclusion in This Study

Typical mentally retarded inmate committed for crime of burglary.

Prior criminal histories for retarded and nonretarded inmates did not differ significantly. Prior number of prison commitments and probation sentences did not differ.




officials as requiring specific intervention. Specific program assignments used to compensate for postulated adaptive behavior deficits were noted in cases where they had been identified.
Deficits of adaptive behavior were seldom noted in rehabilitation plans of the mentally retarded inmates. Referral for specialized treatment to account for identified deficits was often not present. In cases where some attempts were made to account for adaptive behavior deficits, referral was often general and not apparently designed to actually address the deficit area. No special treatment was indicated but rather provisions were made for programs available to any inmate within the prison system. The notion that each inmate requires individualized programming appears based on the belief that differential treatment is effective in rehabilitation of any inmate rather than those selected only by low intelligence.
Physical appearance and hygiene. The rehabilitation plans of 31 (72%) mentally retarded inmates contained references to poor physical appearance or hygiene. This problem was compensated for with referral to counseling services in the prison in all instances. The type or frequency of counseling was not noted. No discernable attempt was made to provide for specialized instruction in this area and it must be assumed that each case was handled on an individual or informal basis by prison staff.
Two factors should be considered regarding this category. First, the level of referrals in this category for nonretarded inmates is not known. Therefore, it was impossible to determine if referral




rates were different from that for nonretarded inmates. Second, it is possible that aspects of physical appearance and personal hygiene were not perceived as deficient until after a period of incarceration had been served. It is reasonable to conclude that the mentally retarded inmates did, in fact, have deficits in this area since their rate for disciplinary reports in this area were almost twice that of the nonretarded sample.
Communication and socialization skills. Poor communication or socialization skills were noted in the rehabilitation plans of 11 inmates from the mentally retarded group. Eight inmates were referred to counseling by prison staff. No special programs were used to aid in remediation of communication or socialization deficits. The level of deficit was not noted but was apparently a subjective judgment made by the classification officer.
Independent functioning. Independent functioning was accounted for by the inmate's ability to initiate activities rather than displaying an overdependence on others for directions. Deficits in the ability to function independently were noted in only nine (21%) cases. No special consideration was noted in any of the cases. Deficits in the ability to function independently may not be a serious limitation in the prison environment. The need to follow orders and comply with rules in such structure takes practical importance over the ability to function in an independent manner. The ability to follow prison rules, however, might require some degree of independence while not under the direct supervision of correctional




officers. The possibility exists, therefore, that independent functioning may not be a skill of practical importance to prison administrators.
Aggression. Aggressive behavior of mentally retarded inmates was not mentioned in literature reviewed for this study. Mentally retarded inmates are thought to be victims (rather than aggressors) in the prison subculture. Aggressive behavior was noted in only seven rehabilitation plans. Type of aggressive behavior was not noted nor were any special provisions made other than referral for counseling. It was not clear whether judgments about aggressive behavior were based on criminal history, commitment offense, or behavior while incarcerated. Increased security classification was not used to address aggressive behavior in these cases, no apparent restrictions were placed on these inmates, nor were any attempts made to provide a higher measure of supervision by the institution. Task 2
The literature regarding the mentally retarded offender is repleat with studies that suggest the mentally retarded offender is at a distinct disadvantage in prison due to adaptive behavior deficits (Atlanta Association for Retarded Citizens, 1975; Brown & Courtless, 1971; Haskins & Friel, 1973; Menolascino, 1974). However, these deficits have been largely postulated based on adaptive behavior deficits of the mentally retarded observed in educationai and vocational settings.




The purpose of task 2 was to determine if differences existed in adaptation to prison regime between mentally retarded and nonretarded inmates. This was measured by comparing the mean number of disciplinary infractions received across seven categories for each group. Results of hypothesis testing across four of the seven comparisons were not significant at the .05 level. The finding of no difference in four categories appears to contradict conclusions of theories proposed in some studies reviewed for this work.
Assault. Conclusions about criminal characteristics reported
in the literature are mixed as to whether mentally retarded offenders commit violent crimes (Atlanta Association for Retarded Citizens, 1970; Brown & Courtless, 1968, 1971; Reichard et al., 1982). Results of this study, however, suggested that mentally retarded inmates were incarcerated for crimes against property rather than for violent offenses against people.
Literature reviewed for this study did not indicate that mentally retarded inmates were aggressive in prison settings (MacEachron, 1978; Santamour & West, 1982; South Carolina Department of Corrections, 1980). The results of task 1 also suggested that prison administrators did not observe or program for aggressive behavior of mentally retarded inmates.
Several authors noted that mentally retarded inmates are victims of aggression rather than aggressors (Brown & Courtless, 1971; Menolascino, 1974; Reichard et al., 1982; Santamour & West, 1978).




The findings of this study tend to agree with those found in the literature that the mentally retarded inmate does not display aggressive behavior in the prison. Differences were not significant between mentally retarded and nonretarded inmates for assault of a correctional officer or other inmates.
Disobeying orders. Several authors have noted that mentally retarded offenders display an inability to adjust to prison regime and comply with rules or orders (MacEachron, 1974; Menolascino, 1974; Reichard et al., 1982; South Carolina Department of Corrections, 1980). The notion that adjustment to prison is different for mentally retarded offenders has presupposed that the cause is poor adaptive behavior. The results of this study suggest this may not be the case.
Mentally retarded and nonretarded inmates received disciplinary
reports for disobeying orders at similar rates. It would be reasonable to assume that mentally retarded inmates would receive more infractions for disobedience if there was difficulty complying with prison rules and authority. The lack of difference suggests that mentally retarded inmates in the Florida Department of Corrections prisons do not display adaptive behavior deficits in this area.
Escape attempts. Attempted escape is a low incidence infraction that accounts for a small percentage of all disciplinary problems in prison. Escape attempts, however, are often viewed as a measure of adjustment to prison (Talarico, 1984). Several authors have suggested that mentally retarded and nonretarded inmates attempt escape at similar rates (Haskins & Friel, 1973; Kentucky Legislative Research




Commission, 1975). Similar rates for attempted escape have been used to suggest that mentally retarded inmates have difficulty adapting to prison (Atlanta Association for Retarded Citizens, 1975; Kentucky Legislative Research Commission, 1975).
Mentally retarded inmates in this study attempted escape at a slightly lower rate than nonretarded inmates. The between group differences for this category of disciplinary report were not significant. Use of attempted escape rates to indicate adjustment to prison is problematic in this study. The rates are so low as to lose practical value. They do indicate, however, that mentally retarded and nonretarded inmates attempt escape at similar rates. Adjustment to prison based on attempted escape, therefore, appears to be similar for both groups.
Possession of alcohol and narcotics. The mean number of
disciplinary reports for these offenses was significantly lower for mentally retarded inmates than for nonretarded inmates. It would appear the level of alcohol and narcotic use admitted prior to incarceration did not remain constant since the number reported for mentally retarded inmates is substantially lower than for nonretarded inmates. It is not clear, however, that differences between mentally retarded and nonretarded inmates for these offenses can be linked to alcohol and narcotic use prior to incarceration.
It is doubtful that the lower number reported for mentally
retarded inmates reflects a better ability at concealing controlled substances than for nonretarded inmates. The lower rate of infractions




suggests a lower rate of use in prison for mentally retarded inmates. The lower rate may, in fact, represent a lower ability to use maladaptive behavior for mentally retarded inmates.
Failure to maintain personal hygiene. The mentally retarded
prisoner has been depicted as being out of step with prison standards for hygiene and appearance in many studies (Brown & Courtless, 1971; Haskins & Friel, 1973; MacEachron, 1978; Santamour &j West, 1978). Literature in education also addresses programming to identify and remediate deficits in personal hygiene and appearance for the mentally retarded (Chinn et al., 1979; Haring, 1980).
Mentally retarded inmates in this study were cited for failure
to maintain personal hygiene approximately twice as often as nonretarded inmates. Inmates may be cited for this offense for a variety of reasons. Failure to shower, make their bed, or properly maintain personal property may all result in this infraction. The higher rate reported for mentally retarded inmates may, in fact, represent an inability to follow rules necessary for adequate independent functioning in the prison structure. The differences reported in this category represent a clear indication that adaptive behavior deficits in physical appearance and hygiene are not being compensated for by the practice of the Florida Department of Corrections.
Significant of the Study
Significance of this study included items of a theoretical and practical nature. These items include the following:
1. Correctional practice in the United States continues to emphasize the desirability of rehabilitative treatment of criminal




Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID EZCOBQ1D2_TG38BL INGEST_TIME 2017-07-11T21:52:32Z PACKAGE UF00101058_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES



PAGE 1

A COMPARISON OF ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR OF MENTALLY RETARDED AND NONRETARDED INMATES OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS By CRAIG DOUGLAS SMITH A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 1986

PAGE 2

This work is dedicated to Maribeth Smith, my wife and friend, and to the memory of the late Robert Wrenn.

PAGE 3

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Early in ray program of doctoral study, I had occasion to seek refuge in a certain corner of the library near the referenced dissertations. I often would attempt to postpone my scholarly duties by reading acknowledgements from works of students who had passed before me. None of these students were known to me but I was often moved at the outpouring of sentiment expressed to acknowledge support and help they had received in the arduous task of completing the dissertation. That said, it is now my time. I wish to extend my sincere thanks to my supervisory committee. They have provided me with the highest level of support, guidance, and understanding. My chairman and friend, Rex Schmid, will have my enduring gratitude and respect for his patience, support, and humor. Above all else, Dr. Schmid approaches life's trials with a special sense of proportion understood by few others. Bob Algozzine has been living proof that scholarly criticism can be relevant yet light-hearted. I would like to extend many thanks to Dr. Cary Reichard for support, practical guidance, and friendship extended during my stay at the University of Florida. Dr. Larry O'Shea has given of his expertise freely in the true spirit of academic collegiality and will be always warmly remembered. Dr. Phil Clark

PAGE 4

has provided me with insight into my own leadership and motivation skills so I will, hopefully, not reprise some of my past blunders. I thank them all for supervising my studies in a professional and scholarly manner. The impact of my fellow students should not go unmentioned. I was fortunate to be touched by people who have enriched me. They are too numerous to mention but too special to forget. Dr. Lee Clark, Greg Valcante, Kim Stoddard, Tom Gollery, P. J. Hudson, Jack Scott, and Pam Campbell will always have a special place in my memory. Several other people have been influential on my personal and professional development. Bill and Sue Evans have provided friendship and guidance through difficult and pleasant times. They have had the wisdom to know when to remain silent and when to offer advice. My former superior officers at the Escambia County School System have provided me with constant motivation in ways they will never realize. I thank them. I am very grateful to Leila Cantara for typing this work. Her patient advice during two periods of graduate work has saved me from many acts of ignorance. I hope the many friends I have failed to mention will forgive me for I realize that none of us are self-made. Final thanks are saved for my family for they have been my greatest joy and source of strength. My children, Craig and Robbie, have given me much more than I will ever be able to return to them. I owe a staggering debt to my wife, Maribeth, for enduring what surely has been a long and difficult path to completion of my goal. She

PAGE 5

has been an unfailing source of strenth, love, and friendship throughout our time together. I am better for having had their company in my journey through life.

PAGE 6

TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS iii LIST OF TABLES viii ABSTRACT ix CHAPTERS I INTRODUCTION 1 The Problem 5 Rationale 7 Development of the Prison System in the United States 7 Alternative Methods for Treatment of Criminal Behavior 8 Rehabilitation in the American Criminal Justice System 10 The Relationship Between Mental Retardation and Criminal Behavior 12 Rehabilitation of the Mentally Retarded Offender ... 13 Delimitations 15 Limitations 16 Definition of Terms 16 Summary 17 II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 19 Selection of Relevant Literature 19 The Nature of the Literature 21 The Efficacy of Rehabilitation Philosophy in Corrections 23 The Mentally Retarded Offender 29 Prevalence of the Mentally Retarded Offender .... 30 Characteristics of the Mentally Retarded Offender 37 Characteristics of the Incarcerated Mentally Retarded Offender 41 Summary 45

PAGE 7

Ill METHODS 47 Subjects 47 Procedures 49 Task 1 49 Task 2 51 Independent Variable 54 Dependent Variables 54 Data Analysis 55 Summary 56 IV RESULTS 57 Descriptive Statistics of Sample Groups 57 Demographic Characteristics of Sample Groups .... 58 Educational Characteristics of Sample Groups .... 61 Criminal History for Sample Groups 63 Analysis of Adaptive Behavior 65 Results of Task 1 66 Results of Task 2 69 Summary 71 V DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS 73 Review of the Study 73 The Problem 73 Summary of the Method 74 Problems and Limitations 74 Discussion and Implications 75 Descriptive Statistics of Sample Groups 76 Results of Task 1 82 Results of Task 2 86 Significance of the Study 90 Suggestions for Further Research 93 REFERENCES 96 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 102 vii

PAGE 8

LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1 The Efficacy of Rehabilitation Philosophy in Corrections 24 2 Characteristics of the Mentally Retarded Offender ... 31 3 Design Schema 52 4 Demographic Characteristics of Sample Groups 59 5 Educational Characteristics of Sample Groups 62 6 Criminal History of Sample Groups 64 7 Adaptive Behavior Cluster Skills 67 8 Results of Task 1 68 9 Mean Number of Disciplinary Reports 70 10 Demographic Characteristics Reported for the Mentally Retarded Offender 78 11 Educational Characteristics Reported for the Mentally Retarded Offender 81 12 Criminal History Reported for the Mentally Retarded Offender 83

PAGE 9

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy A COMPARISON OF ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR OF MENTALLY RETARDED AND NONRETARDED INMATES OF THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS By Craig Douglas Smith August, 1986 Chairman: Rex E. Schmid Cochairman: Robert F. Algozzine Major Department: Special Education The purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy of programming for adaptive behavior deficits of mentally retarded prison inmates in the Florida Department of Corrections. The problem investigated in this study was, "does the Florida Department of Corrections prison program compensate for postulated adaptive behavior differences between mentally retarded and nonretarded inmates?" Two tasks were proposed to investigate this problem. The purpose of task 1 was to identify the manner and frequency with which adaptive behavior was provided for in the Florida Department of Corrections rehabilitation plans for mentally retarded inmates. The purpose of task 2 was to see if differences existed in adaptation to prison regime between mentally retarded and nonretarded inmates as measured by disciplinary reports in prison.

PAGE 10

The sample for Group 1 [mentally retarded inmates) consisted of 439 cases selected to represent the "typical" or most frequently occurring mentally retarded inmate in the Florida prison system based on characteristics of sex, age, and commitment offense. Group 2 (matched nonretarded inmates) was comprised of 439 cases randomly selected from the population of nonretarded inmates that had the same selection criteria as Group 1. Group 3 (unmatched nonretarded inmates) was comprised of 439 cases randomly selected from the population of nonretarded inmates Characteristics of adaptive behavior that relate to prison populations were compared with rehabilitation plans of selected mentally retarded inmates in the Florida Department of Corrections to complete task 1. Group means for number of disciplinary reports received by mentally retarded and nonretarded inmates were calculated and compared to complete task 2. One-way analysis of variance and Tukey's test were used to determine statistical significance. Results of this study suggested that mentally retarded and nonretarded prison inmates in the Florida Department of Corrections adjust to prison regime in a similar manner. The results of this study suggested that behavior in prison was similar across certain measures for mentally retarded and nonretarded inmates. Further research was recommended.

PAGE 11

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION More than 350,000 persons were incarcerated in federal and state prisons at any given time in the 1970s (United States Department of Justice, 1980) with the majority undereducated, underskilled, and from culturally or financially impoverished backgrounds (Reichard, Spencer, § Spooner, 1982). The United States Department of Justice noted in 1980 that median educational achievement level for the general population was 10.6 years as opposed to only 8.6 years for the nation's inmates. The incidence of current inmates with no vocational skills was five times the national average with 90% earning less than $5,000 per year prior to incarceration as compared with 56% of the general population at the same income level. To generalize these findings to the criminal population at large, however, is to assume the incarcerated population is a representative sample of the criminal population. This is not necessarily so. There were approximately 6.5 million arrests in the United States during 1980, yet state correctional facilities only received about 75,000 convicted felons in the same year (United states Department of Justice, 1980). While it is recognized that some arrests involved apprehension of the same individuals more than once, it would appear that no more than 1% of arrested individuals were committed to state prison systems (Reichard et al., 1982).

PAGE 12

Mentally retarded inmates are a subpopulation within the United States prison system (Reichard et al 1982). Prevalence of mental retardation in the general population has been estimated to range from .2 to 2.4% (Tarjan, Wright, Eyman, § Keenan, 1973). Several investigators since the late 1960s, however, have suggested that prevalence of mental retardation in the prison population is much higher (Reichard et al., 1982; Santamour § West, 1978). Using national surveys, Haskins and Friel (1973) found a rate of 4.1% while Brown and Courtless (1970) found the rate to be 9.5%. State surveys have reported prevalence rates that varied from 7.9% (South Carolina Department of Corrections, 1980) to 39.6% (Atlanta Association for Retarded Citizens, 1975). Most investigators place the prevalence of mental retardation in the prison population of approximately 10% (Reichard et al 1982). Brown and Courtless (1971) suggested that subnormal intelligence may be a factor in determining the sentence of criminal defendants. If this is the case, then disproportionate numbers of mentally retarded offenders committed to prison should be viewed as a sentencing alternative used by the courts rather than evidence to imply that mental retardation leads to criminal behavior (Reichard et al 1982). The prison systems that incarcerate these individuals often emphasize rehabilitation of inmates (Cole, 1984). A consistent theme in American corrections since the late 1800s has been that interests of society are best served by rehabilitating criminal behavior. The philosophy of rehabilitation suggests that criminal behavior can

PAGE 13

best be reduced by addressing its causes. Rehabilitation programs in prison systems often make use of educational and vocational training designed to address interests and future needs of inmates. Recreation, religious, and counseling programs are also used to provide opportunities for inmates to affect changes in their behavior while incarcerated. The prison system in Florida is operated as part of the Florida Department of Corrections. The Department of Corrections is responsible for the custody, care, treatment, and supervision of adult criminal offenders committed from the circuit court system of the State of Florida. Rehabilitation programs operated by the Department of Corrections include vocational training, academic classes, counseling programs, recreational opportunities, and employment in prisonsponsored industry and agriculture. The Florida Department of Corrections has no legal control over the type of individuals committed to its custody. It must accept any individual, regardless of mental status, who is committed by the circuit court. Mentally retarded prison inmates in Florida are not systematically segregated for placement in specialized units. Inmates are classified on the basis of age, sex, conviction offense, educational level, and security classification or risk. Mentally retarded inmates are identified by intelligence testing but not by adaptive behavior. They are expected to comply with the same rules and regulations as all other inmates in the department. The Florida Department of Corrections believes this practice has a normalizing effect for

PAGE 14

mentally retarded prisoners and considers it to be an advantage in their treatment. This is not an atypical situation in prison systems in the United States (Reichard et al., 1982; Santamour § West, 1982; Smith, Reichard, § Nunnery, in press). There is evidence, however, to suggest that this approach does not adequately address the needs of the mentally retarded inmate. Problems of overcrowding, criminal behavior, violence, and sexual abuse exist in most prison systems. Several authors have suggested that these problems are compounded by the behavior of the mentally retarded inmate. Brown and Courtless (1971) reported that departments of corrections often faced staffing problems and were not able to provide the individual services and protection required by the mentally retarded prisoner. When special attempts were made to provide adequate staff to address adjustment problems and behavior of the mentally retarded inmate, manpower was diverted from the rest of the population. Other unique problems were posed to prison administrators by mentally retarded inmates. The South Carolina Department of Corrections (1980) reported that the developmental ly disabled offenders suffered from the system and, conversely, the system suffered from the presence of this group. In a survey of correctional officers and inmates, the developmental ly disabled offenders were reported to be frequently abused, exploited, and manipulated by the brighter inmates. Developmentally disabled offenders were perceived to be highly impressionable, and were said to learn criminal behaviors of which they were previously naive. The correctional system was reported to suffer from the developmentally disabled offenders behavior. Deficiencies in ability to function independently, to comprehend regulations and procedures, and the continual need to be protected from brighter inmates intensified problems of an already overburdened security staff. (p. 4)

PAGE 15

MacEachron (1978) noted that mentally retarded inmates were often out of step with the dominant characteristics of the average prisoner. The mentally retarded prisoner was victimized by more sophisticated inmates and, because of their desire to be accepted, the maladaptive consequences of their behavior frequently became intensified as they assumed values of prison culture. The Problem Many prison systems, including Florida's, do not provide specialized treatment for mentally retarded inmates. It is the practice of the Florida Department of Corrections that deficits in adaptive behavior caused by mental retardation are best addressed by treating mentally retarded inmates in the same manner as inmates with normal intelligence. The Florida Department of Corrections monitors inmate behavior through a record of disciplinary infractions compiled during incarceration. Disciplinary infractions provide a measure of adaptive behavior in areas such as aggression, compliance with authority, narcotics and alcohol abuse, and adherence to prison rules. If this approach is effective in compensating for adaptive behavior deficits of mentally retarded prisoners, there should be no group differences in the behavior of retarded and nonretarded inmates. Therefore, the problem under investigation in this study is, "does the Florida Department of Corrections prison program compensate for postulated adaptive behavior differences between mentally retarded and nonretarded inmates?"

PAGE 16

Specific questions to be answered in this investigation include the following: 1. Which adaptive behaviors are addressed in rehabilitation plans for mentally retarded inmates in the Florida Department of Corrections? 2. What are the provisions made by the prison system to compensate for these behaviors? 3. Does the number of disciplinary reports received by mentally retarded inmates for disobeying orders differ from the number of disciplinary reports received by nonretarded inmates? 4. Does the number of disciplinary reports received by mentally retarded inmates for attempted escape differ from the number of disciplinary reports received by nonretarded inmates? 5. Does the number of disciplinary reports received by mentally retarded inmates for assaulting a correctional officer differ from the number of disciplinary reports received by nonretarded inmates? 6. Does the number of disciplinary reports received by mentally retarded inmates for assaulting an inmate differ from the number of disciplinary reports received by nonretarded inmates? 7. Does the number of disciplinary reports received by mentally retarded inmates for possession of narcotics differ from the number of disciplinary reports received by nonretarded inmates? 8. Does the number of disciplinary reports received by mentally retarded inmates for possession of alcohol differ from the number of disciplinary reports received by nonretarded inmates?

PAGE 17

9. Does the number of disciplinary reports received by mentally retarded inmates for failure to maintain personal hygiene differ from the number of disciplinary reports received by nonretarded inmates? Rationale Attempts to correct aberrant social behavior have taken several forms during the course of western civilization with references to vengeance and retribution against societal misfits and criminals appearing throughout recorded history. Initially, acts of revenge were carried out by relatives or, ultimately, by the tribe of the injured party. Later the state took responsibility for penalizing offenders. For many centuries corporal and capital punishment were the methods used to correct deviant behavior. Imprisonment began in Europe as part of the social-welfare system during the 1400s. Indigents were sentenced to periods of confinement to provide labor for agriculture and public works. Use of physical punishment and execution to address criminality remained the norm in Eurone and the United States throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries (Newman, 1978). Imprisonment for criminal behavior, however, was not widely used until the late 1700s. Development of the Prison System in the United States The American prison system began in the 1600s as a means for addressing poverty rather than criminal behavior. The county work house resembled a modern prison in terms of purpose if not structure and was designed to correct behavior, rehabilitate the individual, and make a productive community member. The religious values of the day

PAGE 18

permitted understanding and acceptance of "deserving poor" while the "undeserving poor"--the willfully idle, insane, and mentallysubnormal — were viewed as a threat to community stability and welfare. These attempts by the community to correct threats to social order became part of the formal legal codes by the late 1600s (Walker, 1980) The first institutions used to incarcerate criminals were established in New England during the early 1700s. The prevailing Calvinist doctrines that stressed the natural depravity of man and the power of the devil did not allow optimism about reforming the criminal. The colonists believed that only severe punishments held any hope for reducing criminal behavior (Rothman, 1971) These prisons received their primary impetus from organized religion and reflected punitive aspects associated with the religious dogma of the period. The prevailing correctional practice at that time was to place individuals whose lives were disordered into a highly structured setting where they could learn self-control. Silence was supposed to encourage the offender to become penitent, hence the name penitentiary for the prison. By the 1820s prisons were the principle American method for correcting criminal behavior and incarceration was established as a method to prevent crime. Alternative Methods for Treatment of Criminal Behavior Society's increased use of incarceration to prevent crime and correct undesirable social behavior resulted in the overcrowding of prisons. Early release was first used to address this overcrowding. Sentences to periods of labor for indigence were often shortened by

PAGE 19

apprenticeship or indenture. Two methods for shortening sentences of adult criminals were pardon and commutation which were liberally used during the nineteenth century in the United States Wines and Dwight (1867) reported the incidence of pardon and commutation increased in proportion to length of sentence. Of all prisoners in Massachusetts, approximately 12% received pardons or commutations between 1828 and 1866. The percentage increased from 20.5% for inmates with sentences of 5 to 10 years, to 32% for those with sentences longer than 10 years, and 50% for inmates sentenced to life imprisonment. Parole was the release of an inmate from prison upon evidence of rehabilitation and originated in the English criminal justice system. In 1837, the English Parliament authorized a system whereby criminals were sent to penal colonies in Australia. Each prisoner's behavior was systematically evaluated while in the penal colonies and satisfactory compliance with prison rules resulted in release from sentence after several years (Hibbert, 1968) In Ireland, parole was a system of progression from solitary confinement through five classifications ending in a period of time at a halfway house. Successful adjustment at the halfway house resulted in release from sentence (Lindsey, 1925). Parole and indeterminate sentencing in the United States developed in an ad hoc manner, often as an expedient solution to a unique case. Laws creating the indeterminate sentence and parole in the late 1800s formalized existing practices of many local courts and prisons. The

PAGE 20

10 first parole system in the United States was established in 1877 in New York state. This set a precedent for control of the prisoner for the maximum term of sentence or until evidence of rehabilitation was displayed (McKelvey, 1977) New York was the first state to systematically grade inmate behavior by mandating use of indeterminate sentencing and parole. The indeterminate sentence and parole often developed as separate entities in the late 1800s. Some states adopted both concepts while others used one without the other. Development was further complicated by specific provisions in several states for maximum and minimum sentences. By 1900, 11 states used the indeterminate sentence and another 20 states had some form of parole or conditional release (Lindsey, 1925) All states used indeterminate sentences and parole by 1936 (Walker, 1980). The Concept of Rehabilitation in the American Criminal Justice System American prison systems began to emphasize rehabilitation of criminal behavior during the last two decades of the 1800s with the concept of rehabilitation first expressed in writing by the National Congress of Penitentiary and Reformatory Discipline in 1870 (McKelvey, 1977). The National Congress later became the American Correctional Association which formulated 37 principles, many of which remain the basis for rehabilitation philosophy, i.e., indeterminate sentences, cultivation of the inmate's self-respect, classification of prisoners, reformation rather than punishment, and development of programs to make industrious free men rather than orderly and obedient prisoners (McKelvey, 1977)

PAGE 21

11 The sharpest current controversy in corrections focuses on the efficacy of rehabilitation programs. Several authors have questioned the value of its practice (Fogel, 1975; Kasselbaum, Ward, § Wilner, 1971; Martinson, 1975). Most current criticism of rehabilitation in corrections is based on the work of Robert Martinson (1975) Martinson reviewed over 200 research reports pertaining to rehabilitation programs and concluded that rehabilitation efforts had no effect on recidivism. Kasselbaum, Ward, and Wilner conducted an earlier survey in 1971, and reported it was impossible to make a case for positive effects of rehabilitation efforts. Proponents of eliminating rehabilitation called for a more efficient court system to provide faster trials with more uniform and predictable sentences. They also recommended that rehabilitation programs be offered on a voluntary basis (Fogel, 1975). Martinson further suggested that a fixed penalty for each offense was the only equitable solution for society and the offender noting the indeterminate sentence frustrated both prison administrators and inmates. This view has come to be called the "Justice Theory of Corrections" and relies on retribution and deterrence for its justification (Bartollas, 1985) The philosophy of rehabilitation was based on the belief that criminal behavior could be reduced by treating its causes. Menninger (1969) noted that society and the offender were best served by changing the individual from a lawbreaker to a lawabiding citizen. Ellis MacDougall (1976) reported that rehabilitation programs were never adequately funded or given more than token support. It was, therefore,

PAGE 22

12 unfair to conclude they did not work. MacDougall further argued that retribution had not worked in the past, therefore, there was no reason to believe it would work now or in the future. The American Correctional Association also took a strong position in favor of rehabilitation in corrections (Beto, Park, § Lejins, 1972). While most state corrections systems today practice a combination of rehabilitation and retribution, prison overcrowding, staff shortages, and budget limitation mitigate exclusive use of either theory. The Relationship Between Mental Retardation and Criminal Behavior Several early twentieth century investigators proposed a relationship between subnormal intelligence and criminal behavior. Goddard (1914) investigated mental ability of prison inmates as part of his attempt to develop intelligence tests. He found a majority of prisoners he studied scored at the lower end of the intelligence scale. Fernald (1915) concluded that mentally retarded individuals would inevitably become criminals if not properly supervised. Their findings were based on studies of delinquent youth from which they concluded 25% of all criminals were mentally subnormal. In another study, Goddard (1915) obtained data from 16 institutions for adult offenders. He concluded the incidence of mental retardation ranged from 28% to 89%. Glueck and Glueck (1943) completed a survey of 500 women paroled from a women's prison in Massachusetts in 1934, and found the sample contained 245 mentally retarded individuals. Zeleny (1933) reported results of a review of mental retardation studies conducted between 1910 and 1930. He found much lack of

PAGE 23

13 agreement among investigators regarding a relationship between mental retardation and criminal conduct because of variability in standards used for testing. He attempted to compare the prevalence estimates of these studies with the population at large and concluded general agreement with an average 3.2% male and 5.9% female retarded in the criminal population. Several investigators encouraged development of a theory that mental retardation predisposed a person to criminal behavior (Fernald, 1915; Glueck § Glueck, 1943; Goddard, 1914, 1916; Zeleny, 1933). This notion was based on large numbers of the prison population measured as intellectually and socially subnormal. The general view was if retardation precipitated criminal behavior and retardation was irreversible, the retarded offender was, therefore, a poor risk for rehabilitation. A negative stereotype about mentally retarded offenders persisted as a result of these studies despite the lack of empirical evidence that correlation between intelligence and criminal behavior implied causation. Rehabilitation of the Mentally Retarded Offender Rehabilitation of the mentally retarded offender traditionally involved three possible approaches: segregation and use of special facilities, normalization and individualized treatment within prison populations, no use of differential treatment (Santamour § West, 1982). Segregation of mentally retarded prisoners has often taken the form of isolation or housing with sexually deviant inmates. These methods were reported as undesirable and ineffective (Reichard e t al., 1982).

PAGE 24

14 Segregation of the mentally retarded inmate in special facilities has often taken the form of isolation or housing with mentally ill or institutionalized mentally retarded. Segregation in special facilities presented unique problems to those offenders and administrators involved in programming and has generally accomplished little but incorporation of the worst features of prisons and civil institutions (Lottman, 1976). The principle of normalization originated with Samuel Gridley Howe (1874), was later titled as such by Nirje (1969), and then elaborated upon by Wolfensberger (1972). Normalization referred to benefits obtained from treating the retarded person like normal persons, insofar as possible, while recognizing the individual deficits caused by mental retardation. Therefore, the retarded person who committed a crime would be treated in the same ways prescribed for the nonretarded but with consideration given for mental retardation by individualized, or differential, treatment. Normalization requires individualized programming when used in rehabilitation of criminal behavior. It does not mean treating the mentally retarded prisoner as normal. It requires that retarded prisoners have individualized opportunities based on consideration of their handicap. Kapp (1973) questioned whether these opportunities were available to retarded offenders in prison under most systems. He stated that availability of individualized treatment based on deficits caused by mental retardation was as important to success in rehabilitation as in education. Overby (1982) noted that lack of

PAGE 25

15 differential treatment led to poor adjustment and poor progress while in prison. Santamour and West (1982) found the retarded inmate benefited most when prison adjustment was accomplished through a plan of normalization and differential treatment. Santamour and West (1977) noted that any social welfare system provides treatment to its dominant group. There is historic resistance of corrections programs and social-welfare systems to accept responsibility for mentally retarded criminals (Santamour § West, 1977). Mentally retarded offenders are misfits in both systems, therefore, the level of differential treatment available to them is minimal (Rowan, 1976) Society's reaction to the mentally retarded has progressed from ignorance to isolation to treatment. Differential treatment of the mentally retarded has been used in education and vocational programs successfully (Chinn, Drew, $ Logan, 1979). Rehabilitation theory in corrections recognizes individualized treatment to correct characteristics that may cause, or influence, criminal behavior. Treatment is operationalized in prison systems as harsh punishment, psychiatric care, counseling, and mixtures in between. It remains important to distinguish between mentally retarded and nonretarded offenders when designing and implementing individualized treatment (Overby, 1982) Delimitations This study was delimited to the Florida Department of Corrections. The data analyzed were stored in the Florida Department of Corrections computer management information system for 26,493 inmates incarcerated from 1976 through 1985.

PAGE 26

16 Limitations Results obtained in this study are limited with regard to generalizability to state departments of corrections that classify prison inmates as to intelligence. A centralized computer management system was used to secure necessary data. Therefore, human error with regard to entering data could be a limitation. Definition of Terms The following definitions of terms important to this investigation were developed to insure greater consistency in interpreting results. Adaptive behavior Adaptive behavior is the effectiveness or degree with which an individual meets standards of personal independence and social responsibility expected for age and cultural group (Chinn et al., 1979, p. 24). Criminal justice system The criminal justice system is comprised of the activities of police, lawyers, courts, and corrections workers (Schlitt, 1979, p. 238). Disciplinary report A disciplinary report is a written citation against an inmate for a violation of Florida Department of Corrections rules or Florida criminal statutes (Florida Department of Corrections, 1984, p. 145). Felony A felony is a criminal offense punishable by a term of at least one year in the custody of the Florida State Department of Corrections (Bartollas, 1985, p. 28). Mental retardation Mental retardation refers to significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning existing concurrently with

PAGE 27

17 deficits in adaptive behavior, and manifested during the developmental period (Grossman, 1983, p. 11). Florida Department of Corrections practice, however, operationalizes mental retardation as intellectual functioning of at least two standard deviations below the mean of the Otis-Lennon Mental Ability Test. Misdemeanor A misdemeanor is a criminal offense punishable by a term of imprisonment of less than one year in a county jail or correctional facility (Bartollas, 1985, p. 28). Parole Parole is the supervision of offenders who have served a portion of their sentence in a correctional institution and who are under the continued custody of the state (Bartollas, 1985, p. 196). Summary Fiscal and social accountability are important to those concerned with administration of corrections as society allocates an increasing amount of financial resources to offender rehabilitation. Efficacy of rehabilitation practice, however, has come under scrutiny due to increased crime rates (Clear, 1984). Several authors have suggested differential treatment based on deficits of adaptive behavior as important to success in programming for the mentally retarded in academics, employment, and career education (Cegelka § Prehm, 1982; Chinn et al., 1979; Haring, 1979). Differential handling of the mentally retarded offender has also been cited as effective in rehabilitation of criminal behavior (Reichard et al 1982; Santamour & West, 1982).

PAGE 28

Differential treatment of the mentally retarded prisoner, as in education, should be based on adaptive behavior deficits unique in severity to the mentally retarded. Most prison systems in the United States, however, do not provide differential treatment for mentally retarded inmates. This approach is based on the belief that integration with nonretarded inmates helps in adjustment to prison routine and, ultimately, rehabilitation. If this approach is effective in compensating for behavior deficits of the mentally retarded, no differences should exist between this group and nonretarded inmates on measures of behavior.

PAGE 29

CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Results of a review of literature concerning the mentally retarded offender will be presented in this chapter. Procedures used for obtaining and selecting literature are detailed, the nature of the literature is provided, analysis and conclusions are presented. Selection of Relevant Literature This review contains relevant literature that met preestablished criteria. This literature was located using the following sources: the Criminal Justice Abstracts the Criminal Justice Periodical Index the Criminology and Penology Abstracts the Dissertation Abstracts International and the Cumulative Index to Journals in Education Descriptors used in the search included mental retardation, mentally retarded, rehabilitation, developmental disabilities, criminals, corrections, correctional treatment, handicapped offender, prison, and mentally retarded offender. The initial search consisted of locating those studies published from 1975 through 1985. A period of 10 years was used for two reasons. First, due to enactment of Public Law 94-142, the Education For All Handicapped Children Act, and Section 504 of Public Law 93-112, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, it was theorized that special services for 19

PAGE 30

20 certain adult mentally retarded offenders would be improved due to mandates of this law requiring formalized education and treatment plans for handicapped individuals. Public Law 94-142 was enacted in 1975. Second, there appeared to be a paucity of research in criminal justice and corrections after 1980 due to a lack of funding by the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (Diegelman, 1982) The Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA) was established by congress in 1968 to provide money for research and administration in criminal justice. The LEAA still exists although congress has not appropriated funds for operation since 1979. The bibliography of each study was examined for additional references. From the bibliographies of articles published during the identified years, a number of related articles dating as early as 1966 were also identified. The bibliographies also provided information about which journals most frequently published articles related to the topic. Among the journals identified were the American Journal of Corrections the Canadian Journal of Criminology Corrections Magazine Corrections Today Federal Probation and the International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology The indices of these journals were examined from 1975 to 1984. A survey of the card catalog at the University of Florida's main library revealed several books about corrections, rehabilitation, and the mentally retarded offender. Among the books reviewed was Popular Justice (Walker, 1980). This book provided a history of corrections and its relationship to the criminal justice system. The Retarded

PAGE 31

21 Offender (Santamour £ Watson, 1982) and Correctional Treatment: Theory and Practice (Bartollas, 1985) provided a framework for development of rehabilitation and correctional treatment in the criminal justice system. Criteria for initial selection of reports to be included in the critical review were established. The article had to address some aspect of corrections or rehabilitation theory and be published subsequent to 1975. Several studies from 1966 to 1975 were included in the final analysis of literature. The article had to address the mentally retarded offender at some point in the criminal justice system (prevalence, characteristics, crime, arrest, sentencing, or treatment) Thirty-two articles met the initial selection criteria. Of that number, seven were rejected. The remaining 25 studies were evaluated as positive (+) negative (-), or neutral (0), based on use of databased research, use of descriptive statistics provided by state agencies, reviews of literature, opinion pieces based on reviews of literature, and opinion pieces without literature reviews. The Nature of the Literature The problem addressed in this study, adaptive behavior of the incarcerated mentally retarded offender, has not appeared in recent literature. Studies regarding certain characteristics of the mentally retarded offender were reported prior to 1975. None, however, included the characteristic of inmate behavior during incarceration. None of the reports compared behavior characteristics of this population with

PAGE 32

22 nonretarded prison inmates. Several reports most closely related to the topic were chosen with analysis done in subsections concerning efficacy of rehabilitation in corrections and characteristics of the mentally retarded offender at various stages of the criminal justice system. Analysis of literature was done in these subsections for the following reasons. Concern about the nature and efficacy of rehabilitation theory is important as a basis for understanding attempts to differentially treat the mentally retarded offender (Santamour & West, 1978). It is also important to consider what is known about characteristics of the mentally retarded offender at various stages of the criminal justice system. If a case is to be made for differential treatment in prison based on deficits caused by mental retardation, an analysis of the strengths and weaknesses in this literature is required. An important characteristic of mental retardation concerns deficits of adaptive behavior (Grossman, 1983) Adaptive behavior or related concepts have been involved in definition and classification for a major portion of the history of effort in mental retardation (Chinn et al., 1979). Only in about the past two decades, however, have conceptualization and measurement progressed to a point that adaptive behavior is viewed as a functional parameter of classification of mental retardation. Primary impetus for this movement came from the work of Sloan and Birch (1955), which was adapted for the American Association on Mental Deficiency Manual on Terminology and Classification (Heber, 1961), and further developed by later revisions of this manual (Grossman, 1983).

PAGE 33

25 Although IQ scores were widely used as the primary determinant of mental retardation, not all agreed with this practice. The American Association on Mental Deficiency (AAMD), in its 1961 definition of mental retardation, noted the importance of social adaptation, as well as general intelligence (Heber, 1961). The AAMD guidelines operationalized mental retardation to include significant difficulties in adapting to the demands of the environment. Subsequent definition of mental retardation has included this component of adaptive behavior deficits (Grossman, 1983) The assumption that unique characteristics of the mentally retarded offender generalize to behavior while incarcerated requires closer scrutiny since behavior is often the main indication of adjustment to prison and rehabilitation (Clear, 1984). Further information on literature selected for analysis is presented in two tables, as follows: efficacy of rehabilitation in corrections and characteristics of the mentally retarded offender. The Efficacy of Rehabilitation Philosophy in Corrections Selected research on the efficacy of rehabilitation philosophy in corrections is reported in Table 1. Presented in the table are author (s) and dates of publication, subjects, independent and dependent variables, and conclusions. Six studies are reported, five of which attempted to measure the efficacy of rehabilitation treatment in prison by using recidivism rates. One study attempted to judge the effectiveness of rehabilitation by measuring inmate participation in prison programs.

PAGE 34

24 Ph -a w* 0) as O X T3 (U 3

PAGE 35

25 c

PAGE 36

26 It had been theorized that the goal of rehabilitation philosophywas to change an offender's character, attitudes, or behavior patterns to diminish criminal propensities (von Hirsh, 1976) Advocates of rehabilitation philosophy used several arguments to defend correctional treatment. These authors attempted to refute the idea proposed by Martinson (1975) that nothing really worked in rehabilitation of offenders. The idea that rehabilitation had never been given adequate funding in the American correctional system was often raised to defend treatment in corrections. Treatment has also been justified as a necessary part of any humane correctional system as well as an idea too compelling to abandon (Bartollas, 1985) Most criticism of rehabilitation philosophy was based on Robert Martinson's review of over 200 treatment programs from which he concluded correctional treatment did not work (1975) An analysis of Martinson's study and conclusions, however, indicates the following positive aspects of rehabilitation theory: 1. Martinson cites individual counseling as an effective therapeutic technique that reduced recidivism in several studies. Martinson noted there was some hope in treating properly selected subjects if individual therapy was conducted by trained social workers, 2. Martinson stated in his original conclusions that group counseling was effective if subjects were amenable to treatment and when counselors were trained in counseling techniques. 3. Martinson found intensive probation or parole supervision provided encouraging reports of rehabilitation and further indicated that specially supervised cases appeared to function well in the community.

PAGE 37

27 At least 39 individual studies (48% of those evaluated by Martinson) were associated with positive or partly positive recidivism rates. Of the remaining studies, 4% had ambiguous results and 49% showed negative or no reduction in recidivism. When viewed in terms of treatment approaches and settings, a greater number of favorable results are mentioned by Martinson in relation to use of probation with intensive supervision rather than prison. The results were about equal in the case of group counseling within residential settings and psychotherapy within the community. The setting in which treatment occurred was related to results; lower security of imprisonment resulted in lower recidivism upon release. Caseworker characteristics were also associated with a reduction in recidivism. Inmate characteristics, however, were not linked to success in program. The notion that lower security classification related to lower rates of recidivism was not, however, evidence to suggest efficacy of rehabilitation treatment. Low security classification possibly reflected demonstrated adjustment to prison not attributable to any treatment effect. Prior criminal behavior may have been evidence to suggest a more lawabiding life-style and, therefore, positively influenced security classification and criminal recidivism. The efficacy of correctional treatment was questioned by authors other than Martinson. As early as 1966, Walter Bailey reported results of 100 evaluations of treatment programs and concluded there was little evidence to suggest effectiveness of correctional treatment. He suggested that one or more of the following reasons

PAGE 38

28 explained this ineffectiveness: the treatment in and of itself was not effective, the treatment was not effective in a prison, and treatment was based on incorrect assumptions regarding causes of criminality. Bailey's conclusions appeared highly speculative with no mention made of specific characteristics of treatment programs or their populations. Robison and Smith (1971) reviewed 75 treatment programs and concluded there was no evidence to indicate a reduction in recidivism rates. As was the case with Bailey (1966), conclusions were not based on empirical data but were subjective opinions based on reports from surveyed programs. In both studies, follow-up data concerning the nature of recidivism were not gathered. No indication of any pattern of criminal behavior was used to evaluate program efficacy. For example, revocation of parole may have been due to failure to secure employment rather than criminal behavior. However, a six-year study of treatment in California prisons which included a three-year, postrelease follow-up of 1,000 inmates concluded that treatment had a negative impact on participatns because (a) they were more hostile to staff than those in the control group, (b) committed more serious prison rule infractions, (c) violated parole more frequently, (d) stayed out of prison a shorter time before violating parole, and (e) committed more serious crimes than their commitment offenses while on parole (Serrill, 1976). Gendreau and Ross (1979) reviewed literature published between 1973 and 1978 regarding treatment programs and found 86% of the 95

PAGE 39

29 intervention studies reported success. In these programs more stringent research methods were used to evaluate correctional treatment. Of the studies, 33% were random sample experiments, 23% employed baseline comparisons, and 23% used matched comparison groups. Most of the successful programs emphasized modifying inappropriate behavior. According to Gendreau and Ross, this 86% success rate is convincing evidence that some rehabilitation programs work when properly designed and staffed. Advocates of correctional treatment have asserted that rehabilitation had not been given adequate support to determine effectiveness. Halleck and Witte noted, in 1977, that correctional rehabilitation programs have generally been underfunded, understaffed, and carried out in settings far from ideal. Programs of limited duration and quality were expected to produce similar effects on the lives of those under treatment. Supporters of rehabilitation noted that programs were so few they could only serve a small minority of inmates. Petersilia (1980) reported findings of a national survey revealing no more than 40% of inmates in state prisons participated in any treatment program while incarcerated and only 10% of inmates with identified needs in prison received treatment related to those needs. The Mentally Retarded Offender Results of the review of research about the mentally retarded offender are presented in Table 2. Nineteen studies met the final selection criteria and were included in the analysis. Twelve of the reports were based on data-based research with the majority using

PAGE 40

30 ex post facto analysis and descriptions of existing records. Seven of the works were opinion pieces and were included in the analysis based on their wide acceptance in the field of corrections and the mentally retarded offender. Prevalence of the Mentally Retarded Offender Estimates of prevalence of mental retardation for adults over 19 in the general population range from .2 to 2.4% (Tarjan, Wright, Eyman, § Keenan, 1973). There is considerable disagreement about prevalence of mental retardation in the nation's prison population. Several investigators since the late 1960s have suggested that prevalence of retarded offenders in the total offender population is much higher (Brown § Courtless, 1970; Reichard, Spencer, f T Spooner, 1982). Using national surveys, Haskins and Friel (1973) found a rate of 4.1% while Brown and Courtless (1971) found the rate to be 9.5%. The higher rate of 9.5% resulted from an average of rates ranging from 2.6% in western states to 24.3% in the southeastern states. State surveys have reported prevalence rates that varied from a low of 7.9% (South Carolina Department of Corrections, 1980) to a high of 39.6% (Atlanta Association for Retarded Citizens, 1975). There are several possible explanations for confusion in this area. A major dimension of mental retardation is subaverage general intellectual functioning (Grossman, 1983). A number of psychometric explanations for variability in prevalence rates have been suggested. These included group as opposed to individual testing, circumstances and time under which the tests were given, and the type of professional

PAGE 41

31

PAGE 43

33 C ,D n) 3

PAGE 44

34 c

PAGE 45

35 who administered the test (Haskins $ Friel, 1973; Santamour § West, 1977). Santamour and West (1977) noted circumstances surrounding intelligence testing of new prisoners involved significant emotional stress as testing was often conducted within two weeks of commitment to prison. They suggested that more realistic testing situations resulted in a lower prevalence of mentally retarded prisoners. Haskins and Friel (1973) reported that intelligence testing was frequently administered by poorly trained personnel who lacked skills and experience interpreting and scoring these instruments. The variability of prevalence rates in these studies may be a function of the population base used to estimate prevalence and the way mental retardation is defined and operationalized. It appears that differences in population bases affect prevalence estimates. Rates tended to be higher when based on total offender populations than when based only on new admissions to prison. Investigators of the Atlanta Association for Retarded Citizens (1975) examined this possibility and concluded that rates based on new admissions in the Georgia Department of Corrections were consistently lower by 4 to 7% than were those based on total population of inmates. Prevalence rates also tended to be higher when all offenders had taken an intelligence test (39.6% from the Georgia Department of Offender Rehabilitation) than when only some proportion of all offenders was tested (7.9% from the South Carolina Department of Corrections, 1980). MacEachron (1978) compared prevalence rates from a state that gave intelligence

PAGE 46

tests to all offenders and those from a state that did not and found the rate higher in the state administering to all prisoners. In this study uniform testing of all prisoners appeared to more completely identify those with mental retardation and, therefore, increased the observed proportion in the population. This finding supported the suggestion that a source of variability in prevalence rates may be the method used to determine which inmates are labeled retarded. Since institutional records of offenders are the primary source of information for survey research, the general lack of data on adaptive behavior skills prior to incarceration or age when the developmental disability occurred necessitated reliance on intelligence tests to assess mental retardation. This limitation must be given careful consideration in selection of tests and in interpretation of test scores. Since the means and standard deviations of most intelligence tests differ, comparison of scores from different sources requires use of standard z scores, i.e., scores expressed in standard deviations from the mean. Use of standard z scores is also in agreement with the American Association on Mental Deficiency's recommended method of operationalizing intellectual functioning in terms of units of standard deviation (Grossman, 1983). The large variability of prevalence rates may be explained, therefore, either by variety of tests used or by use of unadjusted test scores rather than z scores. The impact of using different tests has been reported in two studies. The Atlanta Association for

PAGE 47

57 Retarded Citizens reported in 1975 that Georgia's prevalence rate dropped by eight percentage points the first year after changing diagnostic intelligence tests. Haskins and Friel (1973) found that when four intelligence tests were given to the same group of offenders in the Texas Department of Corrections, prevalence rates varied from 7 to 23.4%. Since recognized intelligence tests were used in both studies the results suggested that use of unadjusted scores rather than z scores to identify mental retardation accounted for the variability of prevalence rates. MacEachron (1978) investigated this by comparing prevalence rates based on test scores and on standard z scores and found rates were substantially lower in both the state that administered intelligence tests to all inmates and the state that did not. It was further found that prevalence rates based on z scores were only slightly higher than the estimated range of retarded adults in the general population (Tar j an et al., 1973). Characteristics of the Mentally Retarded Offender Brown and Courtless (1970) noted three phases in the development of theories concerning characteristics of the mentally retarded offender. From 1890 to 1920, theorists felt that mental retardation predisposed an individual to commit criminal acts and attempted to link mental retardation and criminality with poverty, insanity, and moral and physical degeneration (Haskins § Friel, 1973). Close to the onset of World War I, intelligence testing was begun. This represented an attempt to discriminate between mental retardation and criminal behavior. Investigators concluded in the early 1900s that the number of criminals falling in the retarded range was high (Menolascino, 1974)

PAGE 48

58 The second period of time to which Brown and Courtless referred was 1921 to 1960. Theorists during this period questioned whether, in fact, mental retardation predisposed an individual to criminal behavior. The view was adopted that levels of intelligence must be considered within their environmental context (Lane § Witty, 1935) For the first time an attempt was made to relate social factors to intelligence levels, a move away from constitutional explanations offered by investigators such as Lomastro (1976) Current research findings regarding characteristics of the mentally retarded offender are mixed although there appears to be less reluctance to associate retardation with criminality than was the case in the 1940s and 1950s. Reichard et al (1982) noted that a growing awareness of disproportionate numbers of mentally retarded offenders involved with the criminal justice system may represent an administrative function of the system rather than evidence for a causal relationship between mental retardation and criminal behavior. Social characteristics Although reported prevalence rates varied considerably, characteristics of mentally retarded offenders appeared consistent across several studies. Typical mentally retarded offenders were reported to be in their late 20s to early 30s, nonwhite, left school between sixth and ninth grade, achieved a second to third grade equivalency, held low-skill employment, and lived on welfare or below the poverty level (Atlanta Association for Retarded Citizens, 1975; Brown $ Courtless, 1970; Haskins § Friel, 1973; Kentucky Legislative Research Commission, 1975).

PAGE 49

59 MacEachron (1978) reviewed studies of mentally retarded offender characteristics which included parolees, probationers, prisoners, and those incarcerated awaiting trial. The author concluded the typical mentally retarded offender was most likely a male in his late 20s or early 30s, a sixth grade dropout, unemployed with few marketable vocational skills, and living below poverty level. Legal characteristics A disproportionate number of mentally retarded offenders appeared to be arrested, convicted, and sentenced. Brown and Courtless surveyed incarcerated mentally retarded offenders in 1970. They found the mentally retarded defendant was not represented by legal counsel in 7.7% of cases. Of mentally retarded offenders, 59% entered pleas of guilty to their charges. Of those entering guilty pleas, the plea was to the original charge in 80% of cases. Confessions were obtained from mentally retarded offenders in 63% of cases. No pretrial psychological examination as to competency was conducted in 78% of cases. No appeals were made in 88% of cases as opposed to 47% in cases involving offenders with normal intelligence. Santamour and West reported similar results in a 1977 survey: 1. 59% of mentally retarded defendants pleaded guilty to original charges, 2. 80% of mentally retarded offenders did not attempt plea bargaining, 3. 8% of all mentally retarded offenders were not represented by counsel at any time,

PAGE 50

40 4. 66% of mentally retarded offenders confessed to original crimes, 5. issues of competency were not raised in 92% of cases, and 6. no appeals were made in 84% of cases. Similarly, Giagiari (1971) noted that mentally retarded suspects confessed more easily, reacted more readily to friendly suggestions, were more easily intimidated, and pleaded guilty more often than offenders with normal intelligence. Haggerty, Kane, and Udall (1972) reported characteristics of retardation often did not allow them to adequately help in their own defense. The mentally retarded offenders lacked ability to remember details, locate witnesses, and testify credibly. The conclusions of Haggerty et al. (1972) supported conclusions of Haskins and Friel (1973) that characteristics and behavior of the mentally retarded assured a disproportionate number being arrested, convicted, and incarcerated. Mentally retarded offenders committed crimes similar to others brought into the criminal justice system. They were, however, more likely to be arrested and convicted. Criminal history Glueck and Glueck theorized as early as 1943 that types of crimes committed by the mentally retarded were different from those of nonretarded criminals. Several authors noted that mentally retarded offenders committed crimes against persons more frequently than against property (Atlanta Association for Retarded Citizens, 1975; Brown § Courtless, 1968; Kentucky Legislative Research

PAGE 51

41 Commission, 1975). Offenses for narcotics, escape, or parole violation were infrequent (Atlanta Association for Retarded Citizens, 1975). No studies investigated severity of offenses committed by mentally retarded offenders despite the fact that type of offense is often a critical issue in consideration for parole (Talarico, 1982). Brown and Courtless (1971) found mentally retarded offenders committed crimes of burglary and theft most frequently. It was suggested the mentally retarded offender often had a history of non-violent offenses resulting in incaraceration deemed necessary to halt further criminal activity rather than protect society from violence (Reichard et al 1982). Contradictions were also apparent regarding length of sentence. The Georgia Department of Offender Rehabilitation and the Kentucky Legislative Research Commission concluded that mentally retarded offenders received sentences from two to eight years longer than nonretarded offenders. Haskins and Friel (1973), however, noted no difference between sentences of retarded and nonretarded inmates in the Texas Department of Corrections. The Mentally Retarded Offender in Prison Problems of overcrowding, increased criminal behavior, violence, and sexual abuse exist in most prison systems. They are frequently compounded by the presence of the mentally retarded offender. Brown and Courtless (1970) reported that departments of corrections often faced staffing problems and were not able to provide the individual services and protections required by the mentally retarded offender.

PAGE 52

42 When special attempts were made to provide adequate staff to address needs of the mentally retarded offender, manpower was diverted from the rest of the population. Other unique problems were posed to prison administrators by mentally retarded offenders. The South Carolina Department of Corrections (1980) reported mentally retarded offenders and the prison system suffered from the presence of this group. In a survey of correctional officers and inmates, mentally retarded offenders were reported to be frequently abused, exploited, and manipulated by more intelligent inmates. Mentally retarded prisoners were perceived to be highly impressionable and learned criminal behaviors of which they were previously naive. The correctional system was reported to suffer from the retarded offender's presence due to their deficiencies in ability to function independently, comprehend regulations and procedures, and the continual need to be protected from brighter inmates. The presence of the mentally retarded prisoner intensified problems of an already overburdened prison system. The conclusions drawn by the investigators in this study, however, are problematic. The perceptions measured did not necessarily reflect adaptive behavior of mentally retarded prisoners. Attitudes and preferences were not based on empirical data or limited to those having direct contact with mentally retarded prisoners. Several authors suggested that mentally retarded inmates differ in some characteristics from the normal inmate population. Haskins and Friel (1973) indicated that because retarded offenders remained

PAGE 53

longer in institutions, they were older than their nonretarded peers by two years. Manne and Rosenthal (1971) noted 55.4% of mentally retarded inmates in the Kentucky Department of Corrections were 28 years or older, whereas 43.0% of the nonretarded population fit this category. Furthermore, a significant relationship between age at first incarceration and IQ was found. Mentally retarded offenders were incarcerated at an earlier age than nonretarded counterparts (Overby, 1982). Mentally retarded offenders were found to be disproportionately members of minority groups. Haskins and Friel (1973) concluded that two-thirds of mentally retarded prison inmates were black, while only one-third of the nonretarded group was black. Brown and Courtless (19 71) reported that 58% of prison inmates with IQs below 55 were nonwhite. Length of sentence The mentally retarded offender differed from nonretarded prisoners in length of incarceration (Reichard et al. 1982; Soskin, 1982). Of mentally retarded inmates in the Kentucky Department of Corrections, 42% had served more than three years of their present sentence as opposed to 23.5% of nonretarded. Several reasons were proposed for this disparity. They were (a) inability of the retarded offender to finish programs that were required for consideration for parole, (b) nature of offenses for which the retarded offender is incarcerated, and (c) higher incidence of rule infractions (Kentucky Legislative Research Commission, 1975) Haskins and Friel (1973) agreed with these conclusions. They stated the mentally retarded were often unable to present defined employment

PAGE 54

44 and residential plans in consideration for parole. Inability to establish employment has been reported as a major obstacle to the mentally retarded offender gaining parole (Talarico, 1982). Behavior while incarcerated Behavior of inmates is often cited as indicative of adjustment to incarceration (Bartollas, 1985). Adjustment to incarceration is an important prerequisite to consideration for parole (Sacks § Logan, 1984). Disciplinary infractions while incarcerated are the most frequent reason to deny parole (Talarico, 1982). Prison behavior and obtaining parole, therefore, are the main indicators of successful adjustment to prison. Several authors have proposed that rehabilitation of mentally retarded offenders may be enhanced by increased use of parole (Friel, 1976; Smith, Reichard, § Nunnery, in press; Soskin, 1982). MacEachron (1978) postulated that the inmate's disciplinary record influenced success or failure to gain parole. McGovern (1976) found the mentally retarded prisoner often was hampered in adjustment to prison by inability to tolerate frustration or delay gratification, poor impulse control, and cyclical motivation. Further complications for prison adjustment resulted from the retarded offender's propensity to be easily manipulated by more intelligent inmates (Menolascino, 1974; Rowan, 1976; Santamour § West, 1978). The mentally retarded offender was found slower to adjust to prison routine than the nonretarded inmate and often had difficulty comprehending what was expected of him resulting in more frequent rule infractions (Santamour & West, 1978). They were frequently the brunt

PAGE 55

45 of practical jokes and often used as scapegoats or sexual objects by more intelligent peers (Reichard et al., 1982). Haskins and Friel (1973) postulated these factors accounted for a higher level of disciplinary reports for mentally retarded inmates. This notion was not supported, however, by data on inmate behavior in prison. Summary The idea that mentally retarded individuals benefit from educational and vocational programs designed to account for intellectual and behavioral deficits caused by retardation is well documented in the literature (Blackhurst § Berdine, 1981; Chinn et al 1979; Haring, 1979). The benefit of differential treatment in education has been based on demonstrated differences in the characteristics of mentally retarded and nonretarded individuals (Chinn et al 1979). Unique characteristics of the mentally retarded offender often led investigators to assume that differential treatment in prison also is beneficial (Haskins § Friel, 1973; Santamour & West, 1978). These characteristics include the following: 1. The mentally retarded offender is arrested, convicted, and incarcerated in disproportionate numbers (Brown § Courtless, 1981; Reichard et al 1982) 2. The mentally retarded offender is more often male, underemployed, and less educated than the nonretarded offender (Brown § Courtless, 1971; Reichard et al., 1982). 3. The mentally retarded offender committed crimes against people more often than crimes against property (Brown $ Courtless, 1968).

PAGE 56

46 4. The mentally retarded offender served more time in prison than did the nonretarded offender (Reichard et al 1982; Soskin, 1982). 5. The mentally retarded offender was often unable to adapt to prison routine, rules, and expectations resulting in more adjustment and discipline problems (Brown § Courtless, 1971; Haskins § Friel, 1973). It was frequently proposed that differential treatment of the mentally retarded offender was needed to facilitate rehabilitation (Brown § Courtless, 1971; Haskins § Friel, 1973; Reichard et al., 1982; Soskin, 1982). The criminal justice system, however, has been slow to recognize the need for differential treatment of the mentally retarded offender (Santamour $ West, 1982). The theory that differential treatment is required to rehabilitate mentally retarded offenders has been based largely on assumptions that characteristics of mental retardation, including adaptive behavior deficits, affect inmate behavior. Studies that reported characteristics of mentally retarded offenders and included adaptive behavior in prison are not present in the literature. If resources are to be used to support differential treatment of the mentally retarded inmate, it is important to determine if their adaptive behavior differs from the nonretarded inmate.

PAGE 57

CHAPTER III METHODS Methods of the study are presented in this chapter. The chapter is divided into six sections, i.e., subjects, procedures, independent variable, dependent variables, data analysis, and summary. This study was an ex post facto description and comparison of the adaptive behavior of mentally retarded and nonretarded prison inmates in the Florida Department of Corrections prison system. An ex post facto design was used because the independent variable of mental retardation was present prior to this study and, therefore, not subject to experimental manipulation. Data on inmate characteristics and behavior were supplied by the Florida Department of Corrections computerized management information system. Records were supplied by the Department of Corrections for inmates incarcerated from 1976 through 1985. Inmates were divided into three groups for this investigation and selected as mentally retarded or nonretarded based on results of intelligence testing conducted by the Department of Corrections Subjects Assignment as mentally retarded or nonretarded was based on IQ score using the following criteria. The Otis-Lennon Mental Ability 47

PAGE 58

48 Test has a mean score of 100, standard deviation of 16, and standard error of measurement of 4. It is the practice of the Florida Department of Corrections to operationalize mental retardation as intellectual functioning of at least two standard deviations below the mean of the Otis-Lennon Mental Ability Test. Group 1 (mentally retarded; was drawn from the population of 2,651 cases with IQ scores of 68 or below. Variables of age, sex, and commitment offense were used to sample what was the "typical" or most frequently occurring mentally retarded inmate. The mean age of inmates with IQs below 68 was determined to be 28 years with a standard deviation of 6.8. Inmates whose age was within plus or minus one standard deviation of the mean were used. The most frequently occurring sex in the population of inmates with IQ scores below 68 was male (91%) and the commitment offense most frequently found in this population was burglary (41%) A computer generated cross tabulation of these variables resulted in a sample size for Group 1 of 439 cases. Group 2 (matched nonretarded) consisted of 439 cases from the population of 23,842 inmates with IQ scores of 84 or above that met the same criteria as Group 1, i.e., age between 21 and 35 years, male, and committed to prison for burglary. Group 3 (unmatched nonretarded) included inmates from the population with scores above 84. Group 3, however, was not matched with Group 1 as to commitment offense, sex, or age. Group 3 was comprised of the "typical" or most frequently occurring inmate in the population of 23,842 with IQ scores above 84 regardless of age, sex, or commitment

PAGE 59

49 offense. Group 3 consisted of 439 cases randomly selected from this population. Descriptive data are reported for all groups regarding prior criminal history, race, average tested grade level, tested reading level, employment status, and family history at time of commitment (see Chapter IV) Procedures The efficacy of programming for adaptive behavior deficits of mentally retarded prison inmates in the Florida Department of Corrections was investigated in this study. The Florida Department of Corrections maintains that adaptive behavior deficits of the retarded prisoner are best addressed by treating them in the same manner prescribed for normal inmates. If programming based on this practice works to compensate for adaptive behavior deficits, no differences would be expected between behavior of mentally retarded and nonretarded inmates Two tasks were proposed to investigate this problem. The purpose of task 1 was to identify the manner and frequency with which adaptive behavior was provided for in the Florida Department of Corrections rehabilitation plans for mentally retarded inmates. The purpose of task 2 was to see if differences existed in adaptation to prison regime between mentally retarded and nonretarded inmates as measured by disciplinary reports in prison. Task 1 Adaptive behavior has been defined as the effectiveness or degree with which an individual meets standards of personal independence and social responsibility expected for age and cultural

PAGE 60

50 group (Chinn et al., 1979). The definition of mental retardation includes deficits in adaptive behavior. Adaptive behavior deficits are often quantified by use of rating scales for adaptive behavior. The Vineland Social Maturity Scale (VSMS) (Coll, 1953) is perhaps the most widely known and widely used device for assessment of social competence and adaptive behavior. The VSMS assesses 117 behaviors clustered into eight aspects of social competence. The American Association on Mental Deficiency (AAMD) developed an instrument specifically for the evaluation of adaptive and maladaptive behavior, the AAMD Adaptive Behavior Scale (ABS) The ABS is described as also being appropriate for individuals who are mentally retarded or emotionally disturbed. This instrument assesses the individual's effectiveness in adapting to natural and social demands of the environment. Several factors are evaluated, such as self -abusive behavior, destructive behavior, sexually aberrant behavior, and independent functioning. A list of areas of adaptive behavior common to The Vineland Social Maturity Scale and the AAMD Adaptive Behavior Scale was formulated by examining each instrument and subjectively grouping common areas. These areas of adaptive behavior were limited to those relevant to, or observable in, prison systems. The Florida Department of Corrections formulates an individual rehabilitation plan for each inmate committed to prison. This plan addresses areas specific to the needs of each inmate. Educational programs, vocational training, counseling referrals, recreation plans,

PAGE 61

51 and behavior, among others, are addressed for each inmate as deemed appropriate by classification specialists within the prison. Task 1 addressed the frequency and manner with which adaptive behavior of mentally retarded inmates was accounted for by the Florida Department of Corrections. The sample size of Group 1 (mentally retarded) was 439. A random sample of 44, or 10%, from Group 1 was selected. The rehabilitation plans for this sample were reviewed and analyzed to determine which, if any, provisions for adaptive behavior were made to account for adaptive behavior areas common to the AAMD and Vineland scales. In cases where adaptive behavior was addressed in the rehabilitation plan, specific programs used to compensate for adaptive behavior deficits were noted. Task 2 The Florida Department of Corrections monitors inmate adjustment to prison through a record of disciplinary infractions compiled during incarceration. Disciplinary infractions provide a measure of behavior in areas such as aggression, compliance with authority, narcotics and alcohol abuse, and adherence to prison rules, Mentally retarded inmates are not treated in special programs. They are expected to comply with the same rules and regulations as all other inmates in the department. The Florida Department of Corrections believes this philosophy has a normalizing effect for mentally retarded prisoners and considers it to be an advantage in their treatment. If this philosophy works in the desired manner, there should be no differences in group behavior between mentally retarded and nonretarded inmates. The design schema is presented in Table 3.

PAGE 62

Table 3 Design Schema 52 Group Independent Variable Dependent Variable Group 1 (X] mentally retarded Group 2 (Xj) matched nonretarded Group 3 (X2) unmatched nonretarded Yi (number DRs Y2 (number DRs Y 3 (number DRs disobeying orders) attempted escape) assaulting correctional officer) Y4 (number DRs: assaulting an inmate) Y5 (number DRs: possession of narcotics) Y6 (number DRs: possession of alcohol) Y7 (number DRs: failure to maintain personal hygiene) Y^ (number DRs Y2 (number DRs Y3 (number DRs disobeying orders) attempted escape) assaulting a correctional officer) Y4 (number DRs: assaulting an inmate) Y5 (number DRs: possession of narcotics) Y$ (number DRs: possession of alcohol) Yj (number DRs: failure to maintain personal hygiene) Yi (number DRs Y2 (number DRs Y3 (number DRs disobeying orders) attempted escape) assaulting a correctional officer) Y4 (number DRs: assaulting an inmate) Y5 (number DRs: possession of narcotics) Y^ (number DRs: possession of alcohol) Y7 (number DRs: failure to maintain personal hygiene)

PAGE 63

53 The following null hypotheses were derived as a measure of inmate behavior: Ho 1: There is no significant difference in the number of disciplinary reports received for disobeying orders between mentally retarded and nonretarded inmates. Ho 2: There is no significant difference in the number of disciplinary reports received for attempted escape between mentally retarded and nonretarded inmates. Ho 3: There is no significant difference in the number of disciplinary reports for assaulting a correctional officer between mentally retarded and nonretarded inmates. Ho 4: There is no significant difference in the number of disciplinary reports received for assaulting an inmate between mentally retarded and nonretarded inmates. Ho 5: There is no significant difference in the number of disciplinary reports received for possession of narcotics between mentally retarded and nonretarded inmates Ho 6: There is no significant difference in number of disciplinary reports for possession of alcohol between mentally retarded and nonretarded inmates. Ho 7: There is no significant difference in number of disciplinary reports for failure to maintain personal hygiene between mentally retarded and nonretarded inmates.

PAGE 64

54 Independent Variable The independent variable in this study was mental retardation. The Florida Department of Corrections administers a battery of standardized tests to each inmate shortly after incarceration at the Lake Butler Reception and Diagnostic Center. The inmate records contained within the computerized management information system of the Florida Department of Corrections include 26,493 cases who have been given intelligence testing using the Otis-Lennon Mental Ability Test. The various levels comprising the Otis-Lennon Mental Ability Test were designed to provide comprehensive assessment of the general mental ability of the tested subjects. The Otis-Lennon IQ score is a normalized standard score with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 16 points. The IQ score is an index of the subjects relative mental ability when compared with others having taken the same test. Dependent Variables Inmates may be cited for violations of Department of Corrections rules or violations of Florida statutes. The Department of Corrections keeps computerized records as to the number of disciplinary infractions compiled for each inmate. This number is reported for each inmate in this study in seven areas. Disobeying orders Disciplinary reports for disobeying orders result from disobeying any verbal or written order given by a staff member or from disobeying institutional regulations. Attempted escape Disciplinary reports for attempted escape are issued if an inmate is out of an assigned area or off prison grounds without permission.

PAGE 65

55 Assaulting a correctional officer Disciplinary reports for assaulting a correctional officer are issued if an inmate strikes or threatens physical harm to a correctional officer. Assaulting an inmate Disciplinary reports for assaulting an inmate are issued if an inmate strikes or threatens physical harm to another inmate. Possession of narcotics Disciplinary reports for possession of narcotics are issued if an inmate is found to be in possession of any controlled substance other than prescription drugs. Possession of alcohol Disciplinary reports for possession of alcohol are issued if an inmate is found to be in possession of any alcoholic beverage. Failure to maintain personal hygiene Disciplinary reports for failure to maintain personal hygiene are issued if an inmate fails to maintain acceptable hygiene or appearance of housing area. Data Analysis Computerized data supplied by the Office of Planning, Research, and Statistics of the Florida Department of Corrections were used in this investigation. Meetins were held with representatives of the Department of Corrections and permission to secure and analyze these data for purposes of the study was granted. The Department of Corrections supplied data, on computer tape, for 26,493 prisoners. The data were transferred and analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS)

PAGE 66

56 Group means for number of disciplinary reports received by mentally retarded and nonretarded inmates were calculated and compared to test each hypothesis. One-way analysis of variance was used to determine significance among groups. Tukey's test was used to determine pairwise significance between groups. The .05 level of probability was used in all hypothesis testing. Summary Adaptive behavior of mentally retarded prison inmates was investigated in this study. Characteristics of adaptive behavior that relate to prison populations were compared with rehabilitation plans of selected mentally retarded inmates in the Florida Department of Corrections. Disciplinary records of mentally retarded and nonretarded inmates were compared to determine if differences exist in adjustment to prison.

PAGE 67

CHAPTER IV RESULTS Results of the study are presented in Chapter IV. Adaptive behavior of mentally retarded prison inmates incarcerated in the Florida Department of Corrections was investigated in this study. Two tasks were completed to investigate this problem. The purpose of task 1 was to identify the manner and frequency that adaptive behavior was provided for in the Florida Department of Corrections rehabilitation plans for mentally retarded inmates. The purpose of task 2 was to see if differences existed in adaptation to prison regime between mentally retarded and nonretarded inmates as measured by disciplinary reports in prison. The chapter includes descriptive statistics on the samples used for each group, results of task 1 regarding the frequency and manner that the Florida Department of Corrections addresses adaptive behavior of mentally retarded inmates, and results of task 2 regarding the number of disciplinary reports for each group. Descriptive Statistics Group 1 (mentally retarded inmates) was drawn from the population of 2,651 cases with IQ scores of 68 or below. In an attempt to sample what was the "typical" or most frequently occurring mentally retarded 57

PAGE 68

58 inmate in this population, the variables of age, sex, and commitment offense were used. The mean age of inmates with IQs below 68 was determined to be 28 years with a standard deviation of 6.8. Inmates whose age was within plus or minus one standard deviation of the mean were used. The most frequently occurring sex in the population of inmates with IQ scores below 68 was male (91%) and the commitment offense most frequently found in this population was burglary (41%) A computer generated cross tabulation of these variables resulted in a sample size for Group 1 of 439 cases. Group 2 (matched nonretarded) consisted of 439 cases from the population of 23,842 inmates with IQ scores of 84 or above that met the same criteria as Group 1, i.e., age between 21 and 35 years, male, and committed to prison for burglary. Group 3 (unmatched nonretarded) included inmates from the population with scores above 84. Group 3, however, was not matched with Group 1 as to commitment offense, sex, or age. Group 3 was comprised of the "typical" or most frequently occurring inmate in the population of 23,842 with IQ scores above 84 regardless of age, sex, or commitment offense. Group 3 consisted of 439 cases randomly selected from this population. Demographic Characteristics Characteristics of race, prior narcotics use, prior alcohol use, employment status at arrest, and marital status at arrest were examined for each group. An independent samples chi-square test was used to determine possible effects of each variable and group assignment. Frequencies for demographic characteristics and results of chi-square tests are presented in Table 4.

PAGE 69

59 Table 4 Demographic Characteristics of Sample Groups

PAGE 70

60 Race Racial makeup for each group included white, black, Hispanic, and other. The Florida Department of Corrections categorizes Oriental and American Indian inmates as "other." Examination of the raw data suggested that each sample group was comprised of approximately equal numbers from each racial category. Each group contained approximately equal proportions of white, black, and Hispanic inmates. The obtained X 2 =8.832, df=6, was not significant at the .05 level. Prior narcotics use The Florida Department of Corrections records data on prior narcotics use for each inmate. The accuracy of these data is suspect in that this figure is self-reported by the inmate during routine classification and testing. Narcotics use is categorized as light, heavy, or none. No attempt is made to record types of narcotics used prior to incarceration. There are no guidelines as to what constitutes light or heavy narcotics use other than subjective judgment of the examiner. Proportions between groups appeared to suggest that self-admitted narcotic use was approximately the same for each sample group. The obtained X =3.852, df=4, was not significant at the .05 level for prior narcotics use. Prior alcohol use Use of alcohol prior to incarceration is also a selfadmitted statistic. Prior alcohol use is categorized as light, heavy, or none, by inmate admission. Type of alcohol used is not recorded. Examination of the raw data suggested approximately the same levels of alcohol use for each group. The obtained X -4.219, df=4, was not significant at the .05 level.

PAGE 71

61 Employment status at arrest Data regarding employment status at time of arrest are recorded for each inmate at the time of incarceration. Employment status at the time of arrest is noted since those inmates who are employed often lose their jobs as a result of time spent incarcerated waiting disposition of charges. Categories used by the Department of Corrections include full-time, part-time, and unemployed. Examination of the raw data indicated that a much greater number of mentally retarded inmates (38%) were unemployed at the time of arrest than nonretarded inmates. The obtained X 2 =61.271, df=4, was significant at the .05 level. Marital status at arrest Inmate marital status is recorded during the evaluation procedure conducted by the Department of Corrections shortly after incaraceration. Marital status is recorded as married or single. Frequencies for each category in each group appear similar. The obtained X 2 =3.356, df=2, was not significant at the .05 level. Educational Characteristics of Sample Groups The Florida Department of Corrections maintains educational data on all inmates regarding age in years, IQ test score, educational attainment prior to incarceration, tested grade level, and literacy reading level. One-way analysis of variance was used to test for significant differences between group means and Tukey's tests were used to determine pairwise differences where appropriate. Group means and standard deviations are presented in Table 5.

PAGE 72

62 Table 5 Educational Characteristics of Sample Groups Group l a Group 2 a Group 3 a Variable Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Age (years) 28.2 6.2 28.2 6.2 26.4 5.1 IQ score 61.3 5.2 91.3 9.3 92.7 9.8 Educational attainment (years) 6.0 0.7 9.3 3.1 9.1 3.3 Average tested grade level (years) 6.1 3.7 8.4 3.5 9.1 3.2 Literacy reading level (years) 3.1 1.9 6.2 2.1 6.4 2.3 a n=439 for each group. Age Age is reported for each sample group. There was no difference between mean age of Group 1 and Group 2 since they were matched for sampling. Mean age between Group 2 and Group 3 differed by 1.8 years. There was no significant difference between mean age for Group 2 and Group 3. IQ test score The mean IQ test score between groups differed significantly. This was expected since IQ test score reflected mental retardation and was, therefore, used to select for each group. Differences were significant at the .05 level between Group 1 and Group 2 as well as between Group 1 and Group 3.

PAGE 73

63 Educational attainment Educational attainment reflects the highest grade completed by each inmate prior to incarceration. The mean attainment for Group 1 (6.0) was significantly different from the mean level of Group 2 (9.3) and Group 3 (9.1). However, no difference was noted between Group 2 and Group 3 at the .05 level of significance. Average tested grade level The average tested grade level reflects results of testing conducted by the Florida Department of Corrections upon incarceration. Significant differences were reported between groups at the .05 level. Group 1 (4.1) was found to be significantly different from both Group 2 (8.4) and Group 3 (9.1) at the .05 level. There was no significant difference between Group 2 and Group 3 for average tested grade level. Literacy reading level The literacy reading level represents results, in years, of testing to determine reading level at time of incarceration. The mean reading level for Group 1 (3.1) was found to be significantly different from that of Group 2 (6.2) and Group 3 (6.4). Levels for Group 2 and Group 3 were not significantly different at the .05 level, however. Criminal History for Sample Groups Criminal history is recorded by the Department of Corrections for each inmate as to felony convictions, felony probation sentences, prior felony paroles, prison commitments, misdemeanor convictions, and misdemeanor probations. Means and standard deviations are presented in Table 6.

PAGE 74

64 Table 6 Criminal History of Sample Groups Group l a Group 2 a Group 3 a Variable Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Felony 1.10 1.200 1.27 1.300 1.20 1.010 convictions Felony 0.80 .876 0.60 0.720 0.68 0.800 probations Felony 0.46 0.520 0.50 0.610 0.48 0.511 paroles Prior prison 0.91 0.961 0.84 0.911 0.84 0.820 commitments Misdemeanor 4.26 2.320 4.19 2.670 4.20 2.810 convictions Misdemeanor 1.20 1.060 2.17 2.230 2.30 2.810 probations a n=439 for each group. Felony convictions The mean number of prior felony convictions for all groups was low. Group 1 had the lowest mean (1.1). Differences between groups were not significant at the .05 level. Felony probations The mean rate of prior felony sentences to probation was low for all groups ranging from .68 (Group 3) to .80 (Group 1) Probation sentences for felony offenses is recorded only for cases in the State of Florida. Differences between groups were not significant at the .05 level.

PAGE 75

65 Felony paroles Parole is the conditional release from prison after completion of a portion of the original sentence. The low mean rates of prior parole tend to result from the low mean rate for prior felony convictions. Both groups of nonretarded inmates had slightly higher rates for prior paroles. Differences between groups, however, were not significant. Prior prison commitments The Department of Corrections records prior prison commitments for sentences served in Florida prisons only. The mean rate for both groups of nonretarded inmates was the same (0.8) but did not differ significantly from the rate for the mentally retarded group (1.01). Misdemeanor convictions Misdemeanor offenses may range from minor traffic violations to more serious crimes of theft and assault. The Florida Department of Corrections does not differentiate between severity of misdemeanors. The number of prior misdemeanor offenses for Group 1 was slightly higher (4.2) than Group 2 (4.1) or Group 3 (4.2). No significant differences were found between groups. Misdemeanor probations The mean number of prior misdemeanor probation sentences was somewhat higher for the mentally retarded inmates. Significant differences were found between groups at the .05 level. Group 1 was found to differ from Group 2 and Group 3 when pairwise comparisons were tested. There were no differences between Group 2 and Group 3. Analysis of Adaptive Behavior Adaptive behavior deficits of mentally retarded prison inmates in the Florida Department of Corrections was investigated in this

PAGE 76

66 study. The Florida Department of Corrections maintains that adaptive behavior deficits of the retarded prisoner are best addressed by treating them in the same manner prescribed for normal inmates. If programming based on this practice works to compensate for adaptive behavior deficits, no differences would be expected between behavior of mentally retarded and nonretarded inmates. Two tasks were proposed to investigate this problem. The purpose of task 1 was to identify the manner and frequency that adaptive behavior was provided for in the Florida Department of Corrections rehabilitation plans for mentally retarded inmates. The purpose of task 2 was to see if differences existed in adaptation to prison regime between mentally retarded and nonretarded inmates as measured by disciplinary reports in prison. Results of Task 1 Task 1 addressed the frequency and manner with which adaptive behavior of mentally retarded inmates was accounted for by the Florida Department of Corrections. Common areas observable and feasible in a prison setting were matched from major cluster behaviors of the Vineland Social Maturity Scale and the American Association on Mental Deficiency Adaptive Behavior Scale to form a checklist for use in this task. The cluster areas were subjectively drawn from each instrument and grouped into physical appearance and hygiene, communication and socialization skills, vocational skills, independent functioning, and aggression. Cluster areas from each test used to form the checklist used in task 1 are presented in Table 7.

PAGE 77

Table 7 Adaptive Behavior Cluster Skills 67 Common behavior area for use in task 1 review Vineland behavior cluster Physical appearance and hygiene Communication and socialization skills Vocational skills Independent functioning Aggression Self-help dressing Communication Socialization Occupation Self-help eating Self-direction Self-help dressing AAMD behavior domain Responsibility Independent functioning Self-direction Language development Vocational activity Independent functioning Responsibility Violent and destructive behavior The sample size of Group 1 (mentally retarded inmates) was 439. A random sample of 44, or 10%, from Group 1 was selected. The rehabilitation plans of this sample were reviewed and analyzed to determine which, if any, provisions for adaptive behavior were made to account for adaptive behavior areas common to the AAMD and Vineland scales. Specific programs used to compensate for adaptive behavior deficits were noted in cases where adaptive behavior was addressed in the rehabilitation plan. The results of task 1 are presented in Table 8.

PAGE 78

Table 8 Results of Task 1 68 Area of adaptive behavior deficit Frequency noted in Number Program referral rehabilitation plans referred and adaptation Physical appearance and hygiene Communication and socialization skills Vocational skills Independent functioning Aggression 31 (72%) 11 (25%) 18 (42%) 9 (21%) 7 (16%) 31 Counseling Counseling No referral-skill level noted only Counseling Counseling Physical appearance and hygiene Skill deficits involving physical appearance and personal hygiene were noted in 31 cases (72%) Referral for counseling within the prison was the only adaptation used in these plans. Communication and socialization skills Deficits in communication and socialization skills were noted in 11 (25%) of cases. Lack of communication or socialization skills were generally seen to mean that the inmate had difficulty expressing himself or complying with appropriate instructions from prison staff. Eight cases were referred for counseling based on a perceived lack of communication and socialization skills.

PAGE 79

69 Vocational skills Deficits in vocational skills were noted relative to job complexity, ability to perform various types of work, or the type of vocational preference noted. Vocational deficits were accounted for in 18 of cases (42%) Independent functioning Independent functioning was accounted for by the inmates ability to initiate activities rather than displayinj an overdependence on others for direction. An inability to function independently was noted in 9 cases (21%) No special consideration was made to account for lack of ability to function independently. Aggression Aggressive behavior was mentioned in 7 rehabilitation plans (16%). Referral was made to prison counseling in 3 of the cases noting aggressive behavior. Results of Task 2 The purpose of task 2 was to see if differences existed in adaptation to prison regime between mentally retarded and nonretarded inmates as measured by disciplinary reports in prison. Inferential statistics were used to analyze the data for disciplinary reports in seven categories, the dependent variables. One-way analysis of variance was used to test the significance of each null hypothesis. Tukey's test was used to determine significance between pairs for each group. Results of task 2 are presented in Table 9. Disobeying orders The mean number of disciplinary reports received per year for Group 1 inmates was 8.40. Group 2 inmates received an average of 7.90 and Group 3 received 7.86. The F-ratio was 2.62. There were no significant differences between groups for this category. Null hypothesis 1 was accepted.

PAGE 80

70 e o B C 3 < Tt

PAGE 81

71 Attempted escape Group 1 inmates attempted escape at a lower rate (0.273) than Group 2 (0.333) or Group 3 (0.328). Attempted escape is a low incidence infraction which accounts for a small percentage of all disciplinary problems in prison. The between group differences for this category of disciplinary report were not significant at the .05 level. Null hypothesis 2 was accepted. Assaulting a correctional officer The average rate for Group 1 inmates (0.4) was less than Group 2 (0.508) or Group 3 (0.558) in this category. Differences between group means for assaulting a correctional officer, however, were not significant at the .05 level. Null hypothesis 3 was accepted. Assaulting an inmate The mean number of disciplinary reports received by Group 1 (1.190) was slightly less than the number received by group 2 (1.353) or Group 3 (1.342) for assaulting an inmate. The differences were not significant between groups for this offense. Null hypothesis 4 was accepted. Possession of narcotics Group 1 inmates (0.476) received disciplinary reports at a much lower rate for possession of narcotics than Group 2 (1.238) or Group 3 (1.231) inmates. The calculated F-value was significant at the .05 level. Pairwise comparisons indicated that the difference between Group 1 and Group 2 was significant as well as the difference between Group 1 and Group 3. Null hypothesis 5, therefore, was rejected. Possession of alcohol Inmates in Group 1 (0.381) also received disciplinary reports for possession of alcohol at a much lower rate than inmates in Group 2 (1.048) and Group 3 (1.039). Differences

PAGE 82

72 between groups were significant at the .05 level. Null hypothesis 6, therefore, was rejected. Significant differences were found between Group 1 and Group 2 as well as Group 1 and Group 3. Failure to maintain personal hygiene Mentally retarded inmates were cited for failure to maintain personal hygiene at a much higher rate than nonretarded inmates in Group 2 or Group 3. The null hypothesis was rejected at the .05 level. Group 1 was significantly different from Group 2 (0.905) and Group 3 (0.884) in pairwise comparisons for this variable. Summary Adaptive behavior of mentally retarded prison inmates was analyzed in two tasks. Task 1 investigated the manner and frequency that the Florida Department of Corrections recognized and programmed for adaptive behavior deficits of mentally retarded inmates. A review of records was made to determine accommodations and specialized programs to account for deficits. The method used to program for adaptive behavior deficits was referral to counseling within the prison. Vocational deficits were not addressed with remediative programs. Deficits in vocational areas were handled by assignment to lower skilled jobs within the prison. Differences in adaptive behavior between mentally retarded and nonretarded inmates were measured by disciplinary reports received in seven categories. Mentally retarded inmates received significantly more disciplinary reports for failure to maintain personal hygiene than did nonretarded inmates. The inmates in the mentally retarded group received significantly fewer numbers of disciplinary reports for possession of narcotics and possession of alcohol than nonretarded inmates.

PAGE 83

CHAPTER V DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS The fifth chapter begins with a summary review of the study. Discussion and implications are presented along with the significance of the study and suggestions for further research. Review of the Study The Problem Florida's prison system does not provide specialized treatment for mentally retarded inmates. It is the practice of the Florida Department of Corrections that deficits in adaptive behavior caused by mental retardation are best addressed by treating mentally retarded inmates in the same manner as inmates with normal intelligence. The Florida Department of Corrections monitors inmate behavior through a record of disciplinary infractions compiled during incarceration. Disciplinary infractions provide a measure of adaptive behavior in areas such as aggression, compliance with authority, narcotics and alcohol abuse, and adherence to prison rules. If this approach is effective in compensating for adaptive behavior deficits of mentally retarded prisoners, there should be no group differences in the behavior of retarded and nonretarded 73

PAGE 84

74 inmates. Therefore, the problem under investigation in this study was, "does the Florida Department of Corrections prison program compensate for postulated adaptive behavior differences between mentally retarded and nonretarded inmates?" Summary of Method Two tasks were proposed to investigate this problem. The purpose of task 1 was to identify the manner and frequency that adaptive behavior was provided for in rehabilitation plans of mentally retarded inmates. The purpose of task 2 was to see if differences existed in adaptation to prison regime between mentally retarded and nonretarded inmates. A random sample from Group 1 (mentally retarded inmates) was selected to complete task 1. The rehabilitation plans of this sample were reviewed and analyzed to determine which, if any, provisions for adaptive behavior were made to account for adaptive behavior areas common to the AAMD and Vineland scales. In cases where adaptive behavior was addressed in the rehabilitation plan, specific programs used to compensate for adaptive behavior deficits were noted. Group means for the number of disciplinary reports received by mentally retarded and nonretarded inmates in seven categories were calculated and compared to complete task 2. One-way analysis of variance was used to determine significance among groups. Tukey's test was used to determine pairwise significance between groups. Problems and Limitations There were several problems and limitations that were encountered in this study which should be considered when interpreting these

PAGE 85

75 data. First, the record of disciplinary infractions compiled for each inmate is a subjective measure peculiar to the judgment of individual correctional officers. The lower number received by mentally retarded inmates for disobeying orders may represent a subjective adjustment by correctional officers for the low ability of mentally retarded inmates to comply with prison rules. In fact, the lower rate may represent lowered expectations on the part of officers assigned to enforce prison rules. Another problem relates to the measure of inmate behavior. The issuance of disciplinary infractions does nothing to measure the behavior of nonretarded inmates toward the mentally retarded inmate. Several authors have suggested that problems of overcrowding, criminal behavior, and sexual abuse are compounded by the presence of the mentally retarded inmate. Brown and Courtless (1971) reported that departments of corrections often faced severe staffing problems and were not able to provide the individual protection required by the mentally retarded inmate. MacEachron (1978) noted that mentally retarded inmates were often out of step with the dominant characteristics of the average prisoner. The mentally retarded prisoner, therefore, was victimized by more sophisticated inmates and was often the object of physical and sexual aggression. These situations were not measured in this study. Discussion and Implications It is widely noted that differential treatment based on adaptive behavior deficits is important to success for the mentally retarded

PAGE 86

76 in academics, employment, and career education (Cegelka § Prehm, 1982; Chinn et al., 1979; Haring, 1979). The notion that differential treatment of mentally retarded prison inmates effects their adjustment to prison and subsequent rehabilitation is also widely noted (Reichard et al., 1982; Santamour £, West, 1982). It is not, however, well documented. Descriptive Statistics of Sample Groups The belief that mentally retarded offenders require differential treatment has been based largely on assumptions about adaptive behavior. These assumptions have often resulted from theories that demographic, education, and criminal characteristics of mentally retarded and nonretarded prisoners were different. The results of this study are mixed regarding differences between mentally retarded and nonretarded inmates Demographic characteristics Similar conclusions about characteristics of mentally retarded offenders have been reported in several studies. However, demographic data for mentally retarded and nonretarded prisoners were not compared in previous studies (Atlanta Association for Retarded Citizens, 1975; Brown § Courtless, 1970; Haskins & Friel, 1973; Manne § Rosenthal, 1971; South Carolina Department of Corrections, 1980). Typical mentally retarded offenders were reported to be in their late 20s to early 30s, nonwhite, male, left school between sixth and ninth grade, achieved a second to third grade equivalency, held low-skilled employment, and lived below the poverty level.

PAGE 87

77 Demographic characteristics identified in the current research are similar to those reported in previous studies. The typical mentally retarded prisoner incarcerated in the Florida Department of Corrections was 28 years old and not married at the time of arrest. Racial composition was mixed. The large number of nonwhite inmates reported in several previous studies was not evident. Proportions of white and nonwhite inmates in this study were approximately the same. Characteristics of age, race, and marital status for nonretarded inmates in this study were similar to the mentally retarded sample and did not differ significantly for any group. A comparison of demographic characteristics reported in the literature and results of this study are presented in Table 10. Characteristics regarding employment for mentally retarded inmates appear similar to those reported in other studies. Employment status was recorded by the Florida Department of Corrections as full-time, part-time, or unemployed. Data for employment suggested that the mentally retarded group was unemployed at a higher rate than either nonretarded group. The mentally retarded inmates were also employed full or part-time at a lower rate than the nonretarded groups. These differences were significant at the .05 level. The incidence of prison inmates with no vocational skills has been estimated to be five times the national average with 90% earning less than $5,000 per year (United States Department of Justice, 1980). Vocational programming and training are an integral part of most prison systems. Vocational training is used as part of inmate

PAGE 88

78 Table 10 Demographic Characteristics Reported for the Mentally Retarded Offender Conclusion Reported in the Literature Conclusion in This Study Age of typical mentally retarded inmate is 26 to 34 years. (Atlanta Association for Retarded Citizens, 1975; Brown § Courtless, 1970; Haskins § Friel, 1973; Kentucky Legislative Research Commission, 1975; MacEachron, 1978; South Carolina Department of Corrections, 1980) Typical inmate is nonwhite. (Atlanta Association for Retarded Citizens, 1975; Brown § Courtless, 1970; Haskins § Friel, 1973; Kentucky Legislative Research Commission, 1975; MacEachron, 1978; South Carolina Department of Corrections, 1980) Typical mentally retarded inmate is male. (Atlanta Association for Retarded Citizens, 1975; Brown § Courtless, 1970; Haskins § Friel, 1973; Kentucky Legislative Research Commission, 1975; MacEachron, 1978; South Carolina Department of Corrections, 1980) Low rates of employment prior to incarceration. (Atlanta Association for Retarded Citizens, 1975; Brown § Courtless, 1970; Haskins § Friel, 1973; Kentucky Legislative Research Commission, 1975; MacEachron, 1978; South Carolina Department of Corrections, 1980) Age of typical mentally retarded inmate is 28 years. Number of white and nonwhite inmates is approximately the same. No significant difference between groups. Typical mentally retarded inmate is male. Mentally retarded inmates were employed full and part-time at lower rate than nonretarded. Differences were statistically significant.

PAGE 89

79 rehabilitation and provides for a more orderly existence within prisons. The low employment rates for mentally retarded inmates across several studies suggest a need for specialized training within the institutions to compensate for low employment. Data for alcohol and narcotic use by the mentally retarded offender have not appeared in the literature. The Florida Department of Corrections records self-reported alcohol and narcotic use prior to incarceration for each inmate. Prior use of alcohol and narcotics is noted as heavy, light, or none. These data are suspect in that they are self-reported and, therefore, may vary widely. They are also not specific as to types of narcotics or alcohol used nor are they corroborated by any outside source. Educational characteristics Low educational attainment for mentally retarded offenders was noted in several works reviewed for this study. The mean IQ for mentally retarded inmates in the Florida Department of Corrections was 61.3 as opposed to 92.7 for nonretarded inmates. Educational attainment prior to incarceration was significantly different between mentally retarded and nonretarded groups. The mean attainment for mentally retarded inmates was 6.0 years as opposed to 9.1 years for nonretarded prisoners. The results of grade-level and reading literacy testing displayed similar differences between mentally retarded and nonretarded groups. While these differences were to be expected based on the presence of mental retardation, implications for treatment within the prison system are obvious. Several investigators have demonstrated the

PAGE 90

efficacy of differential treatment in academic programming for the mentally retarded (Cegelka § Prehm, 1982; Chinn et al., 1979; Haring, 1979). None of the studies reviewed indicated any attempts were made to provide systematic academic programming based on techniques used to educate the mentally retarded in public school systems. The Florida Department of Corrections does not provide special academic programming designed to account for deficits caused by mental retardation. Similarities and differences between results reported in the literature and this study are presented in Table 11. Criminal history Current findings about criminality of the mentally retarded offender are mixed although there appears to be less reluctance to associate retardation with criminality than was the case in the 1940s and 1950s. Reichard et al (1982) noted that a growing awareness of disproportionate numbers of mentally retarded offenders involved with the criminal justice system may represent an administrative function of the system rather than evidence for a causal relationship between mental retardation and criminal behavior. It was often reported that types of crimes committed by the mentally retarded were different from those of the nonretarded criminal. Several authors noted that mentally retarded offenders committed crimes against persons more frequently than against property (Atlanta Association for Retarded Citizens, 1975; Brown § Courtless, 1968; Kentucky Legislative Research Commission, 1975). Prior criminal rate for mentally retarded offenders was not reported

PAGE 91

81 Table 11 Educational Characteristics Reported for the Mentally Retarded Offender Conclusion Reported in the Literature Conclusion in This StudyLow educational attainment (Atlanta Association for Retarded Citizens, 1975; Brown S, Courtless, 1970; Haskins $ Friel, 1973; Kentucky Legislative Research Commission, 1976; MacEachron, 1976: South Carolina Department of Corrections, 1980) Average educational attainment for mentally retarded inmate was 6.0 years. Difference between nonretarded groups and mentally retarded group was statistically significant. IQ scores No study reviewed mean IQ for nonretarded or mentally retarded inmates. Tested grade levels and/or reading ability No study included data for tested grade level or reading ability. Mean IQ score for mentally retarded inmates was 61.3 Mean IQ score for nonretarded inmates was 92.7. Differences were statistically significant. Grade level testing and reading literacy levels were significantly different between mentally retarded and nonretarded groups

PAGE 92

82 in any studies despite the fact that this was often a critical issue in consideration for parole (Talarico, 1982). Differences in criminal behavior for mentally retarded and nonretarded inmates in the present study were not significant. Prior prison commitments and prior probation sentences were also not significantly different. These results suggest that the criminal history for mentally retarded and nonretarded inmates may not differ as reported in other studies. These results also tend to contradict the notion that mentally retarded offenders are more disposed toward criminal behavior than nonretarded prisoners. Conclusions from the literature and results of this study about criminal history are presented in Table 12. Results of Task 1 Various authors have recommended differential treatment of the mentally retarded offender (Brown $ Courtless, 1971; Haskins § Friel, 1973; Santamour § West, 1982). It was often suggested that differential treatment of the mentally retarded inmate, as in education, should be based on adaptive behavior deficits unique to the mentally retarded. Most prison systems in the United States, however, do not attempt to identify these differences or address them in programming for inmates (Santamour $ West, 1982). This practice is based on the belief that integration with nonretarded inmates helps in adjustment to prison routine and, ultimately, rehabilitation. The purpose of task 1, therefore, was to determine which, if any, adaptive behavior deficits of mentally retarded inmates were identified by prison

PAGE 93

85 Table 12 Criminal History Reported for the Mentally Retarded Offender Conclusion Reported in the Literature Conclusion in This Study Mentally retarded inmates committed most often for crimes against property. (Brown § Courtless, 1968; Kentucky Legislative Research Commission, 1975; Reichard, Spencer, £ Spooner, 1982) Mentally retarded inmates committed most often for crimes against people. (Atlanta Association for Retarded Citizens, 1975; Brown § Courtless, 1971) Extent and type of prior criminal record not indicated in any other study. Typical mentally retarded inmate committed for crime of burglary. Prior criminal histories for retarded and nonretarded inmates did not differ significantly. Prior number of prison commitments and probation sentences did not differ.

PAGE 94

84 officials as requiring specific intervention. Specific program assignments used to compensate for postulated adaptive behavior deficits were noted in cases where they had been identified. Deficits of adaptive behavior were seldom noted in rehabilitation plans of the mentally retarded inmates. Referral for specialized treatment to account for identified deficits was often not present. In cases where some attempts were made to account for adaptive behavior deficits, referral was often general and not apparently designed to actually address the deficit area. No special treatment was indicated but rather provisions were made for programs available to any inmate within the prison system. The notion that each inmate requires individualized programming appears based on the belief that differential treatment is effective in rehabilitation of any inmate rather than those selected only by low intelligence. Physical appearance and hygiene The rehabilitation plans of 31 (72%) mentally retarded inmates contained references to poor physical appearance or hygiene. This problem was compensated for with referral to counseling services in the prison in all instances. The type or frequency of counseling was not noted. No discernable attempt was made to provide for specialized instruction in this area and it must be assumed that each case was handled on an individual or informal basis by prison staff. Two factors should be considered regarding this category. First, the level of referrals in this category for nonretarded inmates is not known. Therefore, it was impossible to determine if referral

PAGE 95

85 rates were different from that for nonretarded inmates. Second, it is possible that aspects of physical appearance and personal hygiene were not perceived as deficient until after a period of incarceration had been served. It is reasonable to conclude that the mentally retarded inmates did, in fact, have deficits in this area since their rate for disciplinary reports in this area were almost twice that of the nonretarded sample. Communication and socialization skills Poor communication or socialization skills were noted in the rehabilitation plans of 11 inmates from the mentally retarded group. Eight inmates were referred to counseling by prison staff. No special programs were used to aid in remediation of communication or socialization deficits. The level of deficit was not noted but was apparently a subjective judgment made by the classification officer. Independent functioning Independent functioning was accounted for by the inmate's ability to initiate activities rather than displaying an overdependence on others for directions. Deficits in the ability to function independently were noted in only nine (21%) cases. No special consideration was noted in any of the cases. Deficits in the ability to function independently may not be a serious limitation in the prison environment. The need to follow orders and comply with rules in such structure takes practical importance over the ability to function in an independent manner. The ability to follow prison rules, however, might require some degree of independence while not under the direct supervision of correctional

PAGE 96

86 officers. The possibility exists, therefore, that independent functioning may not be a skill of practical importance to prison administrators Aggression Aggressive behavior of mentally retarded inmates was not mentioned in literature reviewed for this study. Mentally retarded inmates are thought to be victims (rather than aggressors) in the prison subculture. Aggressive behavior was noted in only seven rehabilitation plans. Type of aggressive behavior was not noted nor were any special provisions made other than referral for counseling. It was not clear whether judgments about aggressive behavior were based on criminal history, commitment offense, or behavior while incarcerated. Increased security classification was not used to address aggressive behavior in these cases, no apparent restrictions were placed on these inmates, nor were any attempts made to provide a higher measure of supervision by the institution. Task 2 The literature regarding the mentally retarded offender is repleat with studies that suggest the mentally retarded offender is at a distinct disadvantage in prison due to adaptive behavior deficits (Atlanta Association for Retarded Citizens, 1975; Brown § Courtless, 1971; Haskins § Friel, 1973; Menolascino, 1974). However, these deficits have been largely postulated based on adaptive behavior deficits of the mentally retarded observed in educational and vocational settings.

PAGE 97

87 The purpose of task 2 was to determine if differences existed in adaptation to prison regime between mentally retarded and nonretarded inmates. This was measured by comparing the mean number of disciplinary infractions received across seven categories for each group. Results of hypothesis testing across four of the seven comparisons were not significant at the .05 level. The finding of no difference in four categories appears to contradict conclusions of theories proposed in some studies reviewed for this work. Assault Conclusions about criminal characteristics reported in the literature are mixed as to whether mentally retarded offenders commit violent crimes (Atlanta Association for Retarded Citizens, 1970; Brown § Courtless, 1968, 1971; Reichard et al., 1982). Results of this study, however, suggested that mentally retarded inmates were incarcerated for crimes against property rather than for violent offenses against people. Literature reviewed for this study did not indicate that mentally retarded inmates were aggressive in prison settings (MacEachron, 1978; Santamour § West, 1982; South Carolina Department of Corrections, 1980). The results of task 1 also suggested that prison administrators did not observe or program for aggressive behavior of mentally retarded inmates. Several authors noted that mentally retarded inmates are victims of aggression rather than aggressors (Brown § Courtless, 1971; Menolascino, 1974; Reichard et al., 1982; Santamour £ West, 1978).

PAGE 98

The findings of this study tend to agree with those found in the literature that the mentally retarded inmate does not display aggressive behavior in the prison. Differences were not significant between mentally retarded and nonretarded inmates for assault of a correctional officer or other inmates. Disobeying orders Several authors have noted that mentally retarded offenders display an inability to adjust to prison regime and comply with rules or orders (MacEachron, 1974; Menolascino, 1974; Reichard et al., 1982; South Carolina Department of Corrections, 1980). The notion that adjustment to prison is different for mentally retarded offenders has presupposed that the cause is poor adaptive behavior. The results of this study suggest this may not be the case. Mentally retarded and nonretarded inmates received disciplinary reports for disobeying orders at similar rates. It would be reasonable to assume that mentally retarded inmates would receive more infractions for disobedience if there was difficulty complying with prison rules and authority. The lack of difference suggests that mentally retarded inmates in the Florida Department of Corrections prisons do not display adaptive behavior deficits in this area. Escape attempts Attempted escape is a low incidence infraction that accounts for a small percentage of all disciplinary problems in prison. Escape attempts, however, are often viewed as a measure of adjustment to prison (Talarico, 1984). Several authors have suggested that mentally retarded and nonretarded inmates attempt escape at similar rates (Haskins § Friel, 1973; Kentucky Legislative Research

PAGE 99

89 Commission, 1975). Similar rates for attempted escape have been used to suggest that mentally retarded inmates have difficulty adapting to prison (Atlanta Association for Retarded Citizens, 1975; Kentucky Legislative Research Commission, 1975). Mentally retarded inmates in this study attempted escape at a slightly lower rate than nonretarded inmates. The between group differences for this category of disciplinary report were not significant. Use of attempted escape rates to indicate adjustment to prison is problematic in this study. The rates are so low as to lose practical value. They do indicate, however, that mentally retarded and nonretarded inmates attempt escape at similar rates. Adjustment to prison based on attempted escape, therefore, appears to be similar for both groups Possession of alcohol and narcotics The mean number of disciplinary reports for these offenses was significantly lower for mentally retarded inmates than for nonretarded inmates. It would appear the level of alcohol and narcotic use admitted prior to incarceration did not remain constant since the number reported for mentally retarded inmates is substantially lower than for nonretarded inmates. It is not clear, however, that differences between mentally retarded and nonretarded inmates for these offenses can be linked to alcohol and narcotic use prior to incarceration. It is doubtful that the lower number reported for mentally retarded inmates reflects a better ability at concealing controlled substances than for nonretarded inmates. The lower rate of infractions

PAGE 100

90 suggests a lower rate of use in prison for mentally retarded inmates. The lower rate may, in fact, represent a lower ability to use maladaptive behavior for mentally retarded inmates. Failure to maintain personal hygiene The mentally retarded prisoner has been depicted as being out of step with prison standards for hygiene and appearance in many studies (Brown & Courtless, 1971; Haskins £ Friel, 1973; MacEachron, 1978; Santamour $ West, 1978). Literature in education also addresses programming to identify and remediate deficits in personal hygiene and appearance for the mentally retarded (Chinn et al 1979; Haring, 1980). Mentally retarded inmates in this study were cited for failure to maintain personal hygiene approximately twice as often as nonretarded inmates. Inmates may be cited for this offense for a variety of reasons. Failure to shower, make their bed, or properly maintain personal property may all result in this infraction. The higher rate reported for mentally retarded inmates may, in fact, represent an inability to follow rules necessary for adequate independent functioning in the prison structure. The differences reported in this category represent a clear indication that adaptive behavior deficits in physical appearance and hygiene are not being compensated for by the practice of the Florida Department of Corrections. Significant of the Study Significance of this study included items of a theoretical and practical nature. These items include the following: 1. Correctional practice in the United States continues to emphasize the desirability of rehabilitative treatment of criminal

PAGE 101

91 behavior despite controversy over the efficacy of rehabilitation philosophy. The dominant theme in corrections has been to address causes of criminal behavior since the 1860s. For mentally retarded offenders, assumptions have been made that characteristics of mental retardation influenced criminal behavior. Research in this area, however, has been largely speculative. Speculation has centered on assumptions that deficits in adaptive behavior caused by mental retardation resulted in poor adjustment and rehabilitation while in prison. Studies that quantified adaptive behavior deficits of mentally retarded inmates have not appeared in the literature. 2. Mentally retarded inmates in Florida are not systematically segregated for special treatment. They are expected to comply with the same rules and regulations as all other inmates in the department. The Florida Department of Corrections believes this practice has a normalizing effect for mentally retarded prisoners and considers it to be an advantage in their treatment. This is not an atypical situation in prison systems in the United States (Reichard et al., 1982; Santamour § West, 1982; Smith, Reichard, § Nunnery, in press). The results of this investigation support the efficacy of the practice of Florida's Department of Corrections. 3. Several authors have suggested that this approach did not meet the needs of mentally retarded inmates (Reichard et al., 1982; Santamour § West, 1982; South Carolina Department of Corrections, 1980). It was often noted that mentally retarded inmates had great difficulty complying with prison rules and adjusting to prison regime due to

PAGE 102

92 adaptive behavior deficits. The presence of adaptive behavior deficits are a component of mental retardation (Grossman, 1979). The results of this study offer little evidence to suggest that mentally retarded inmates of the Florida Department of Corrections display adaptive behavior deficits. 4. The results of task 1 indicated that deficits of adaptive behavior common to the AAMD and Vineland rating scales were not often noted in rehabilitation plans of mentally retarded inmates. Specialized treatment was not apparent when adaptive behavior deficits were noted. 5. Four of seven comparisons for inmate behavior between mentally retarded and nonretarded groups were not significant. Of the remaining three, only personal hygiene deficits were considered relevant to poor prison adaptation. The results of task 2, therefore, suggest that differences in adaptive behavior were not indicated when measures of inmate behavior were compared between mentally retarded and nonretarded groups 6. The results of this study supply some evidence to suggest that mentally retarded inmates may successfully adapt to prison regime in the Florida Department of Corrections. Common indicators of adequate adaptation to incaraceration are escape attempts and compliance with authority (Kentucky Legislative Research Commission, 1975; Santamour £ West, 1977; Talarico, 1982). No significant differences were found between mentally retarded and nonretarded inmates in this study for disobeying orders and attempted escape.

PAGE 103

93 Furthermore, rates for aggressive offenses and possession of alcohol and narcotics were lower for mentally retarded inmates. These rates may be evidence to suggest that mentally retarded inmates adapt to prison more successfully than their nonretarded counterparts. 7. Fiscal and social accountability are important to those concerned with administration of corrections as society allocates an increasing amount of financial resources to the criminal justice system. Differential handling of the mentally retarded offender has been frequently suggested to effectively rehabilitate criminal behavior (MacEachron, 1978; Reichard et al., 1982; Santamour $ West, 1982). The idea of providing differential treatment, however, suggests the need for increased finances to establish and maintain special programs for mentally retarded inmates. The results of this study indicate that these programs may not be required for mentally retarded inmates to adequately adjust to prison. The practice of the Florida Department of Corrections appears to adequately address the needs of mentally retarded inmates in most respects. Suggestions for Further Research Results of this study suggested that mentally retarded and nonretarded prison inmates in the Florida Department of Corrections adjust to prison regime in a similar manner. It is suggested, however, that further study be done. Several authors have proposed differential treatment for rehabilitation of the mentally retarded offender (Atlanta Association for Retarded Citizens, 1975; MacEachron, 1978; Santamour § West, 1982).

PAGE 104

94 These theories were often based on the notion that characteristics of mentally retarded and nonretarded offenders were different. Similar demographic characteristics for mentally retarded offenders have been reported in several studies (Brown § Courtless, 1970; Haskins § Friel, 1973; Atlanta Association for Retarded Citizens, 1975; South Carolina Department of Corrections, 1980). The conclusions of this study approximate these previously reported findings. However, studies that compared demographic characteristics of the mentally retarded and nonretarded offender have not appeared in the literature. The conclusions of the current study suggest characteristics of these groups do not differ as widely as other investigators have postulated. Further research about differences between these groups is needed if differential treatment is to be based on characteristics unique to the mentally retarded inmate. Conclusions reported in the literature about the criminal history of mentally retarded offenders were mixed. It was not clear if mentally retarded offenders were imprisoned more frequently for crimes against property or people (Atlanta Association for Retarded Citizens, 1975; Brown § Courtless, 1970; Kentucky Legislative Research Commission, 1975). It has been theorized that mentally retarded offenders are disproportionately incarcerated to prevent further criminal activity rather than protect society (Menolascino, 1974; Reichard et al., 1982). Studies about the extent and type of prior criminal record for mentally retarded offenders, however, have not been reported. The results of this study indicated that prior criminal history for both groups did

PAGE 105

95 not significantly differ. Further research to determine the extent and type of prior criminal behavior would be helpful since correctional treatment and incarceration are often based on criminal history. The results of this study indicated that behavior in prison was similar across certain measures for mentally retarded and nonretarded inmates. These measures, however, do not address whether mentally retarded and nonretarded inmates matriculate toward parole release at different rates. Therefore, the effects of mental retardation on subsequent parole release could be studied. It is widely noted that the mentally retarded offender is victimized, disliked, misunderstood, or ignored by prison personnel and nonretarded inmates (Atlanta Association for Retarded Citizens, 1975; Menolascino, 1974; Reichard et al., 1982; South Carolina Department of Corrections, 1980). In future research about the effects of mental retardation on prison adjustment, it is recommended that attitudes of correctional officers and prison administrators toward mentally retarded inmates be studied. This would allow some measure as to the latitude used in enforcing rules between mentally retarded and nonretarded inmates. Similarly, the level of violence shown toward mentally retarded inmates by nonretarded inmates and correctional officers should be studied.

PAGE 106

REFERENCES Allen, F. A. (1966). Criminal justice, legal value, and the rehabilitative ideal. Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science 50 226-232. Atlanta Association for Retarded Citizens. (1975). A study of Georgia's criminal justice system as it relates to the mentally retarded Atlanta: Author. ~ ~ — Bailey, W. C. (1966). Correctional outcome: An evaluation of 100 reports. Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science 57, 153-160. Bartollas, C. (1985). Correctional treatment --Theory and practice Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Beto, G., Park, J., § Lejins, P. (1972). Position statement on current criticism of corrections. American Journal of Corrections 34(5), 20-22. Blackhurst, A. E. 5 Berdine, W. H. (1981). An introduction to special education Boston: Little, Brown. ~ — Brown, B. £ Courtless, T. (1968). The mentally retarded offender. In R. Allen, E. Ferster, § J. Rubin (Eds.), Readings in law and psychiatry (pp. 153-160). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University. Brown, B. § Courtless, T. (1970). Fantasy and force: A study of the dynamics of the mentally retarded offender. Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science 61_(1) 71-77. Brown, B., § Courtless, T. (1971). The mentally retarded offender Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Cegelka, P. T. § Prehm, H. J. (1982). Mental retardation--From categories to people Columbus, OH: Merrill. Chinn, P. C, Drew, C. J., § Logan, D. R. (1979). Mental retardation: A life cycle approach St. Louis: Mosby. 96

PAGE 107

97 Clear, T. R. (1984). Correctional policy, neo-retributionism, and the determinate sentence. In G. F. Cole (Ed.), Criminal justice: Laws and politics (pp. 187-210). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. Cole, G. F. (1984). The decision ro prosecute. In G. F. Cole (Ed.), Criminal justice: Laws and politics (pp. 142-153). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. Doll, E. A. (1953). The essentials of an inclusive concept of mental deficiency. American Journal of Mental Deficiency 46, 214-219. Diegelman, R. F. (1982). Federal financial assistance for crime control: Lessons of the LEAA experience. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 73(3), 994-1003. Fernald, W. E. (1915). The burden of feeblemindedness. Journal of Psycho-Asthenics 17 87-111. Florida Department of Corrections. (1985). State of Florida—Department of Corrections: Manual of policy and procedures Tallahassee, FL: Author Fogel, D. (1975). We are the living proof--The justice model of corrections Cincinnati: Anderson. Friel, C. (1976). The mentally retarded offender. In M. Santamour (Ed.) The mentally retarded citizen and the criminal justice system: Problems and programs (pp. 287-325). Newport, RI : James Maher. Gendreau, P., $ Ross, R. R. (1979). Effective correctional treatment: Bibliography for cynics. Crime and Delinquency 27 463-489. Giagiari, T. (1971). The mentally retarded offender. Criminal and Defense Literature 14 559. Glueck, S., § Glueck, E. T. (1943). Five hundred delinquent women New York: Knopf. Goddard, H. H. (1914). The Kallikak family New York: Arno. Goddard, H. H. (1915). The criminal imbecile: An analysis of three remarkable murder cases New York: Macmillan. Goddard, H. H. (1916). Feeblemindedness: Its causes and consequences New York: Macmillan. ~~ Grossman, H. J. (1983). Manual on terminology and classification in mental retardation Washington, DC: American Association on Mental Deficiency.

PAGE 108

98 Haggerty, D., Kane, L., § Udall, D. (1972). An essay of the legal rights of the mentally retarded. Family Law Quarterly 6, 59-71, Halleck, S. L. & Wihte, A. D. (1977). Is rehabilitation dead? Crime and Delinquency 23, 375-378. Haring, N. (1979). Behavior of exceptional children Columbus, OH: Merri 11. Haskins, J., $ Friel, C. (1973). Project CAMIO: Theories of criminality and mental retardation Huntsville, TX: Sam Houston State University. Heber, R. A. (1961). Mental retardation: Concept and classification. In E. P. Traff § P. Himelstein (Eds.), Readings on the exceptional child: Research and theory (pp. 69-81). New York: Appleton-Century-Crof ts Hibbert, C. (1968). The roots of evil: A social history of crime and punishment New York: Minerva. Howe, S. (1874). Report of the superintendent to the trustees of the Massachusetts School for Idiotic Children Boston: State of Massachusetts. Kapp, M. (1973). Legal disposition of the mildly retarded offender: A vote for segregation and special treatment Unpublished paper. Kasselbaum, G. D., Ward, D., $ Wilner, E. (1971). Prison treatment and parole survival: An empirical assessment New York: John Wiley. ~ Kentucky Legislative Research Commission. (1975). Mentally retarded offenders in adult and juvenile correctional institutions (Research Report no. 125). Frankfort: Author. Lane, H. A. § Witty, P. A. (1935). The mental ability of delinquent boys. Journal of Juvenile Research 19, 1-12. Lindsey, E. (1925). Historical sketch of the indeterminate sentence and parole system. Journa l of Criminal Law and Criminology, 16, 22-23. ~ — Lomastro, J. (1976). The Massachusetts Task Force. In M. Santamour (Ed.), The mentally retarded citizen and the criminal justice system (pp. 151-187). Newport, RI : James L. Maher. Lottman, M. (1976). Jumping on the bandwagon. In M. Santamour (Ed.), The mentally retarded citizen and the criminal justice system (pp. 233-251). Newport, RI: James L. Maher.

PAGE 109

99 MacDougall, E. (1976). Corrections has not been tried. Criminal Justice Review 1(1), 63-76. MacEachron, A. E. (1978). The mentally retarded and borderline offender in four northeastern states: A description of prevalence rates and offender characteristics Washington, DC: Developmental Disabilities Office, Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Manne, S. H. £ Rosenthal, D. (1971). I.Q. and age of first commitment or dangerous offenders. Correctional Psychologist 4(5), 220-229. Martinson, R. (1975). The effectiveness of correctional treatment New York: Praeger. McGovern, K. (1976). A behavioral approach to intervention. In P. Browning (Ed), Rehabilitation and the retarded offender (pp. 87-109). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas. McKelvey, B. (1977). American prisons: A history of good intentions Montclair, NJ: Patterson Smith. Menolascino, F. (1974, February). The mentally retarded offender. Mental Retardation 12 7-11. Menninger, K. (1969). The crime of punishment New York: Viking. Newman, G. (1978). The punishment response Philadelphia: Lippincott. Nirje, B. (1969). The normalization principle and its human implications, In P. Kugel § W. Wolfensberger (Eds.), Changing patterns in residential services for the mentally retarded (pp. 34-57). Washington, DC: Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Overby, R. J. (1982). The rights of developmental ly disabled juvenile offenders in institutions. In M. Santamour § P. Watson (Eds.), The retarded offender (pp. 397-405). New York: Praeger. Petersilia, J. (1980). Which inmates participate in prison treatment programs? Journal of Offender Counseling, Services, and Rehabilitation 4_, 121-126. Reichard, C. L. Spencer, J., § Spooner, F. (1982). The mentally retarded defendant-offender. In M. Santamour (Ed.), The retarded offender (pp. 121-139). New York: Praeger. Robinson, J., § Smith, G. (1971). The effectiveness of correctional programs. Crime and Delinquency 17 67-80. Rothman, D. (1971). The discovery of the asylum Boston: Little, Brown.

PAGE 110

100 Rowan, B. A. (1976). The mentally retarded citizen and correctional institutions. In M. Kindred (Ed.), The retarded citizen and the law (pp. 201-217). New York: Free Press. Sacks, H. R., 5 Logan, C. H. (1984). Does parole make a (lasting) difference? In G. Cole (Ed.), Criminal justice: Law and politics (pp. 182-198). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole. Santamour, M. § Watson, P. (1982). The retarded offender New York: Praeger. Santamour, M., f, West, B. (1977). The mentally retarded offender and corrections. In Mental retardation and the law: A report on current court cases (pp. 66-79). Washington, DC: President's Committee on Mental Retardation. Santamour, M. 5 West, B. (1982). The mentally retarded offender: Presentation of the facts and a discussion of the issues. In M. Santamour 5 P. Taylor (Eds.), The retarded offender (pp. 200224). New York: Praeger. Schlitt, J. (1979). The mentally retarded offender and criminal justice personnel. Exceptional Children 46 16-22. Serrill, M. S. (1976). California: More prisoners, more programs, more problems. Corrections Magazine 8, 4-8. Sloan, W. § Birch, J. A. (1955). A rationale for degrees of retardation. American Journal of Mental Deficiency 60 258-264. Smith, C. D., Reichard, C. L., § Nunnery, M. (in press). Parole services for the mentally retarded offender. Journal of Correctional Education Soskin, R. M. (1982). The mentally retarded offender: Competence, culpability, and sentencing. In M. Santamour £i P. Watson (Eds.), The retarded offender (pp. 195-205). New York: Praeger. South Carolina Department of Corrections. (1980). The mentally retarded adult offender: A study of the problem of mental retardation in the South Carolina Department of Corrections Columbia, SC: South Carolina State Press. Talarico, S. M. (1982). The dilemma of parole decision making. In G. Cole (Ed.), Criminal justice: Law and politics (pp. 210218). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

PAGE 111

101 Tarjan, G. S., Wright, R. K. Eyman, C, $ Keenan, C. W. (1973). Natural history of mental retardation: Some aspects of epidemiology. American Journal of Mental Deficiency 77(4), 369-379. "" "' ~~~^~ United States Department of Justice. (1980). National prisoners statistics bulletin Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Von Hirsch, A. (1976). Doing justice: The choice of punishments New York: Hill and Wang. ~~ Walker, S. (1980). Popular justice: A history of American criminal justice New York: Oxford University Press. Wines, E. C., § Dwight, T. W. (1867). Report on the prisons and reformatories of the United States and Canada New York: AMS. Wolfensberger, W. (1972). Normalization Toronto: National Institute on Mental Retardation. Zeleny, L. D. (1933). Feeblemindedness in criminal conduct. American Journal of Sociology, 139, 564-576.

PAGE 112

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Craig Douglas Smith was born on July 15, 1948, in Oak Park, Illinois. His family moved several times during his childhood, eventually settling in Elmhurst, Illinois. Craig graduated from York Community High School in Elmhurst, Illinois, in 1965. Craig attended Elmhurst College in Elmhurst, Illinois, and received the Bachelor of Arts degree in history in 1973 following periods of full-time employment and service in the United States Marine Corps. After graduation, Craig worked in corrections as an adult probation and parole officer in Illinois and Florida. In 1978 Craig began studies at the University of Florida in special education. He received the Master of Education degree in 1980 with emphasis in education of the emotionally disturbed and learning disabled. From 1980 until 1983 Craig was employed by the Escambia County School System in Pensacola, Florida. He worked as a teacher of emotionally disturbed children at the J. Lee Pickens Center and as coordinator for middle school special education programs. Craig returned to the University of Florida in 1983 to pursue doctoral studies in special education. His major areas were education 102

PAGE 113

103 of the emotionally disturbed and educational research. Craig currently is assistant professor of special education at Georgia College in Milledgeville, Georgia. He is married to Maribeth Smith and has two children, Craig and Robert.

PAGE 114

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards. of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality ^ as ^ dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Re x E Sch ma d^/Ch airman Associate Professor of Special Education I certify that 1 have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. US £ M Lne7 ;i a}} Robert F. Professor /Vlgozzme of Speci I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Profes Educational Leadership I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Lawrence Q/ O'Shea Assistant Professor of Special Education

PAGE 115

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Cary L. R* Professor of Special Education This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the College of Education and to the Graduate School and was accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. August, 1986 0^/ Q/i.m j L bjk Dean, College ot Dean, Graduate School

PAGE 116

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 3 1262 08285 350 7