<%BANNER%>

Ex-Inmates' Perspectives on Informal Methods of Control Utilized by Correctional Officers

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0021808/00001

Material Information

Title: Ex-Inmates' Perspectives on Informal Methods of Control Utilized by Correctional Officers
Physical Description: 1 online resource (140 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Santos, Saskia Daniele
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2007

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: control, corrections, guards, inmates, officers, parolees, prison, punishment
Criminology, Law and Society -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Criminology, Law, and Society thesis, M.A.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Within every prison in the United States there are more inmates than officers; yet correctional officers are required to maintain control. They utilize several methods, formal and informal, to control inmates. Research into informal social control methods utilized by correctional officers has been scarce but has indicated these methods are essential for prisons to operate efficiently. This study examined, from the perspectives of 106 former inmates, nine methods of informal social control as well as the context in which they occur, such as inmate and correctional officers? interactions. Participants responded to questions measuring perceptions of inmate and correctional officers' interaction and correctional officers' traits, perceived frequencies of use of informal social control methods and effectiveness, as well as questions measuring demographic and personal information. Fifty participants also took part in focus groups. Frequencies were run to examine participants' agreement with survey items and linear regression models were also estimated to identify possible predictors of agreement with survey items. Some of the participants viewed interactions with correctional officers as negative experiences and described correctional officers using negative traits, and even fewer viewed the interactions and traits held by correctional officers as positive. A limited number of the participants indicated that correctional officers use methods of informal social control to punish or control inmates, and from their perspective all the methods included in the study were viewed as being effective in controlling inmates to some extent. Also, recommendations for future research and possible policy recommendation are made.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Saskia Daniele Santos.
Thesis: Thesis (M.A.)--University of Florida, 2007.
Local: Adviser: Lane, Jodi S.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2007
System ID: UFE0021808:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0021808/00001

Material Information

Title: Ex-Inmates' Perspectives on Informal Methods of Control Utilized by Correctional Officers
Physical Description: 1 online resource (140 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Santos, Saskia Daniele
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2007

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: control, corrections, guards, inmates, officers, parolees, prison, punishment
Criminology, Law and Society -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Criminology, Law, and Society thesis, M.A.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Within every prison in the United States there are more inmates than officers; yet correctional officers are required to maintain control. They utilize several methods, formal and informal, to control inmates. Research into informal social control methods utilized by correctional officers has been scarce but has indicated these methods are essential for prisons to operate efficiently. This study examined, from the perspectives of 106 former inmates, nine methods of informal social control as well as the context in which they occur, such as inmate and correctional officers? interactions. Participants responded to questions measuring perceptions of inmate and correctional officers' interaction and correctional officers' traits, perceived frequencies of use of informal social control methods and effectiveness, as well as questions measuring demographic and personal information. Fifty participants also took part in focus groups. Frequencies were run to examine participants' agreement with survey items and linear regression models were also estimated to identify possible predictors of agreement with survey items. Some of the participants viewed interactions with correctional officers as negative experiences and described correctional officers using negative traits, and even fewer viewed the interactions and traits held by correctional officers as positive. A limited number of the participants indicated that correctional officers use methods of informal social control to punish or control inmates, and from their perspective all the methods included in the study were viewed as being effective in controlling inmates to some extent. Also, recommendations for future research and possible policy recommendation are made.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Saskia Daniele Santos.
Thesis: Thesis (M.A.)--University of Florida, 2007.
Local: Adviser: Lane, Jodi S.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2007
System ID: UFE0021808:00001


This item has the following downloads:


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 E20110331_AAAAEA INGEST_TIME 2011-03-31T23:05:55Z PACKAGE UFE0021808_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 56760 DFID F20110331_AACUVK ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH santos_s_Page_037.pro GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
c538be07d64d3e3649dc2624496167c6
SHA-1
7f9d94d1789c93b47d3341fab5071ee7fb8b5347
55170 F20110331_AACUUW santos_s_Page_023.pro
e28b8d31b1d324910842776d32195de9
479c36c111e8aade3277a252981daf06493cc046
107678 F20110331_AACVBF santos_s_Page_048.jpg
4c25595071a0945fc8b363db917f7128
382e754f8c83d41cc651911303f31487ee2cbd8d
111123 F20110331_AACVAR santos_s_Page_034.jpg
33114e3716df12c61999b0ffff26c871
c9bb7ab99ed8e3b276b20bcd8ad4ead789824725
46756 F20110331_AACUVL santos_s_Page_038.pro
2bc39e863893bdb5da860525ad84786a
173e3bb035f007ed58a52a175f1fbb4acce4bf91
37410 F20110331_AACUUX santos_s_Page_024.pro
a2535048b98421eab65da014c2b408b3
0ba98a891f06cb73b85096c73eb3ab46cc1d6cb4
104186 F20110331_AACVBG santos_s_Page_049.jpg
f0502d47ad432c07ace7a618941f7324
bfb635a02bb499a1f7d0057eb481d7f05bddfabe
58131 F20110331_AACUWA santos_s_Page_053.pro
3d6fa0ddbe00326e8cde5f950dbbcdd7
b6b491460e93975cc9461b8c2a4ab002545ab1a3
112593 F20110331_AACVAS santos_s_Page_035.jpg
51eb6e7f2a2797d6a84780747fe24567
c2b4dc2dba620a1974f9a1d674656f053213ced9
45447 F20110331_AACUVM santos_s_Page_039.pro
90b92c24b0b96e0731130548051a0485
0bfbe7783f979cb0c75393b54b7808c593a406ef
48676 F20110331_AACUUY santos_s_Page_025.pro
32960da8da2143e570d91aa2c07baf2f
eb3276141686a30b33dc1cb1a46a8bbebf7eba95
112601 F20110331_AACVBH santos_s_Page_050.jpg
48246cce1ae905d55039ab2671fec468
66081af5b32e7e534b1f459e34ec7bfa48368f59
51440 F20110331_AACUWB santos_s_Page_054.pro
c5be4a2f1d7d4913aa3711b97e83a109
b97d4cffad8f30a2da0b2b12863c2b6941e414ca
56306 F20110331_AACUVN santos_s_Page_040.pro
51f704012e86a6f558a947fcb8191fc3
e9ecfa401aa873625d55c7b3aef37c1591886820
30620 F20110331_AACUUZ santos_s_Page_026.pro
c6d098c22cb0ee4a4cd3debe9f7c4bf8
04ba094565d1e9cd23e774a9e295b3ecfbdb9a09
114128 F20110331_AACVBI santos_s_Page_051.jpg
7fd652c32661e446cefe23f7b9181701
4d8a2eb83bd3dcc309a031e0227a22ece5703819
8443 F20110331_AACUWC santos_s_Page_055.pro
eead67448e169fa07ff6e394414e9db5
035f4a7e9f8f822a02ef960700e42186d45f9b70
107217 F20110331_AACVAT santos_s_Page_036.jpg
c2bbd382b465ee8e82b8b722311bda03
d3c8dee018309656cadfde58b07a00b1268262f3
55947 F20110331_AACUVO santos_s_Page_041.pro
ce13eac67c819666355659a393ba3ae2
714bc6e5249ab58c5420bebb4777c07950122bda
110663 F20110331_AACVBJ santos_s_Page_052.jpg
290dc421d163d03e8f6ea677e2c78f34
e222e9fdca51d17cc07c3cae156e67447dbcca4f
50105 F20110331_AACUWD santos_s_Page_056.pro
8556aed11fd35c8b2adfb227926eaf93
0441ffa7b76038b0006b03e13cc97f6870eb915f
112877 F20110331_AACVAU santos_s_Page_037.jpg
258df54151724ecfdc7479cd9390a2ec
c9b3c73b90571a08e1ce664eaa091adb5128a7ea
54872 F20110331_AACUVP santos_s_Page_042.pro
bd53b8d58d5921b3e1d791d7503cc248
740a5597c35cc8d1afa228cdde904603cd349cd8
113915 F20110331_AACVBK santos_s_Page_053.jpg
50f213259ce3bc4c39148424f79c7fb9
df39332d812a15646b15f5360ceef00e9b35c7d4
27749 F20110331_AACUWE santos_s_Page_057.pro
5a610a550140f541a4da78b9690c0e7d
c12b14af1d3c8ececbc5d639050f5cf484145b8c
79400 F20110331_AACVAV santos_s_Page_038.jpg
d438a4a7cf2d47a9f24fcab4a959acbe
6f2a31acb3debc6da5bc9dbf401c932ddff88298
66263 F20110331_AACUVQ santos_s_Page_043.pro
5f7b0cd88455f109f96a61abb808d432
49d09a12bb72dfba0bd5ca10146e55ef352222ff
103949 F20110331_AACVBL santos_s_Page_054.jpg
b74d90f85dbe4e09164e25cab398375e
96e84954a53eb9f1678850bd52e4afc13ef0bc2f
17146 F20110331_AACUWF santos_s_Page_058.pro
b25b2e739161a25a5d56a0082c0abe74
ee08ed72e0ec64365727108a387020ce36a85de7
93321 F20110331_AACVAW santos_s_Page_039.jpg
648a7fa67534438de3dbdfb7ef3da2cb
9c86179dab2d76905aa55c1d309bf9f1c111226f
51035 F20110331_AACUVR santos_s_Page_044.pro
36b39a67a52695bb504a6b163d786f31
a31047ce208569a1355b7d6043d346d2a66bda69
117786 F20110331_AACVCA santos_s_Page_069.jpg
8004d7c44cf7bce173700ad0c12c9b1f
d16d227399be5e5c50b51f478e869cbd88966e21
19696 F20110331_AACVBM santos_s_Page_055.jpg
1f73bb0510ee5fea26ae65b7784cec66
6f36350a94267fd1a496ab96f0b64a09dd033cd6
55512 F20110331_AACUWG santos_s_Page_059.pro
43504b9fb414d7ef2ceb4959dc015635
92090e1196b29d6d13e9fd96c033c46cfb303c1a
108358 F20110331_AACVAX santos_s_Page_040.jpg
6cc777204a02788a7ec7ada484ccc6d7
dcda2116dbe38cb3a0d36d2e94eae3d8b023da63
54735 F20110331_AACUVS santos_s_Page_045.pro
882032901d012001bd062a939b5100ca
e23bef46cda41e4b9cc0efa5deae2d0fc9714b03
47164 F20110331_AACVCB santos_s_Page_070.jpg
d4e117d9a48cdf9bbe663211baba4c96
ba2cd371408b8521465c5e101bbc80987c88e7c5
98764 F20110331_AACVBN santos_s_Page_056.jpg
d085c75892ac8b4dec0210024b9695f8
7a705143d45957c0795bfba4e29b6d04bf36f36b
54506 F20110331_AACUWH santos_s_Page_060.pro
11a8af2d75d7cdd239538f59fe7aa411
fcd8fe490ed1cf27706afe20c2161e05d7c9fe16
107758 F20110331_AACVAY santos_s_Page_041.jpg
96062203ad4675a473c09ffc36876ede
e243b5a744797c91e1f56584ff4740a0f55d2302
51826 F20110331_AACUVT santos_s_Page_046.pro
8c529d994ad79a3311771c8383f637eb
39222bb3c3a190340d605a7d4de91035dea30562
46495 F20110331_AACVCC santos_s_Page_071.jpg
6e12389436331c2fa910d920f74fff5c
18decfb97a7f9e50a5740dc6054278b27c4f3699
40002 F20110331_AACVBO santos_s_Page_057.jpg
ab3897e1c72b82aca9746a6d39eef783
c8900414475d848b6e18a4dcd1c1814e24911dab
53067 F20110331_AACUWI santos_s_Page_061.pro
c1acb4b044da6313ab0087a075741a5b
16c5acc7c7b19b4bbcc8ac6fda3a36b6556f325f
109675 F20110331_AACVAZ santos_s_Page_042.jpg
bb5ce9332ce95a39fcb6b268eb555cc9
0139064b29afc62d13a6d8c4e3fcdd557de969aa
53455 F20110331_AACUVU santos_s_Page_047.pro
242edc387c3daab3ad81575d9384f966
ebc65ea257288673220686f3679f217a88ac1482
71617 F20110331_AACVCD santos_s_Page_072.jpg
ac9de86076a28bbd21e5d067449b7186
583124cad22666c823692214e6f58e82b9ac3c38
26079 F20110331_AACVBP santos_s_Page_058.jpg
d41aacad605c385cc3fc495ecc43626b
576d813118f7a3c4d515102835e1e5aca3372e69
54616 F20110331_AACUWJ santos_s_Page_062.pro
702c68e8c1123002953b8e227c8c0e4f
611ef048ab531249d054161a5ab45020f1eaa87b
48429 F20110331_AACVCE santos_s_Page_073.jpg
0d83a8fa5ba2173b4406b68f1edf1280
5c00fd5a9e4185192d51a76cd734ff70be914715
111230 F20110331_AACVBQ santos_s_Page_059.jpg
de7026aaa5e41e9f54d3376cd2cdccc4
9952ecce799d80fec00cbf176b3e9516584d993c
54182 F20110331_AACUVV santos_s_Page_048.pro
b51ba4dc789fee339df904cceb6f92bd
1467e96739a6c768f856ebb828c8ee32ee25264f
114046 F20110331_AACVCF santos_s_Page_074.jpg
b560af41973d1f3327a7c7afc476b0b8
caa0c0ca9600151a15c3f631fd4f304c6f357d53
110174 F20110331_AACVBR santos_s_Page_060.jpg
3adbc946b55ed62ea4a1cf1ace97ffb3
e420a3c001b50458c6f5f5c363d9314847ccb411
26401 F20110331_AACUWK santos_s_Page_063.pro
41fad954f4ce2f940428585bf906d9d0
27273e2aef46579a040cf6ca1156376a71b9cf3b
52226 F20110331_AACUVW santos_s_Page_049.pro
fd4ff6b35263ec11494287ae04eb8d5b
0285afc1502b2e8ce807bf82ea69dec96fad4f43
112728 F20110331_AACVCG santos_s_Page_075.jpg
5eadb74f1d3f8290ff59edfd674d9795
270efeeab120d131b74d38c0b000a0eb3c68bb77
53874 F20110331_AACUXA santos_s_Page_079.pro
d304aeb540d0b187547dc81006352fff
37c776c020fb39186ab8d0edc10382ffb97c649e
107522 F20110331_AACVBS santos_s_Page_061.jpg
c2a60b749c68c56834692797545cb7b1
dcabc1cc52823645ce830b4cfaef618dfaf1dd6a
53781 F20110331_AACUWL santos_s_Page_064.pro
efe0ac0a1639489e3e820639c7c8fa3a
2f2c4db1ddf7f97c0c9e38f65cd6f0cbe198df5f
56762 F20110331_AACUVX santos_s_Page_050.pro
b20b3d1d9c449107762e7751aec23970
85d8fd837b00ae5ee98465846ee90b17cb59692f
112390 F20110331_AACVCH santos_s_Page_076.jpg
9431ce021193506c457b3d8d4e596c41
0bfbd018ccb2b3e6a3979dd861e9f719add8cb7b
55297 F20110331_AACUXB santos_s_Page_080.pro
887e9f996c40412e0a65b8dba2535990
22fe7ffea21bee3f79d7102334f9c5f5245fc6b9
111437 F20110331_AACVBT santos_s_Page_062.jpg
f39a0da159c25407bc7d4c978ecf5aae
c5ccaa0e2ed25092c1ba9d0535dd7dc039159fc5
54519 F20110331_AACUWM santos_s_Page_065.pro
71113422be357940e60c68210b771ad7
b4f6d8d619ff98014e166dcab602e531149d52ca
57894 F20110331_AACUVY santos_s_Page_051.pro
8dffe2590f0ec0eeeff0c0ae12b89345
99e5304641453dd42065f485edc03bdfbd323141
33053 F20110331_AACVCI santos_s_Page_077.jpg
fa5346c1ffffac82d4150d29ac74968b
2f4e1aa8d7242ac7e8b2f55bac142cb151ea40f2
58641 F20110331_AACUXC santos_s_Page_081.pro
7bcdcc515a95c198d3e84240881d7540
2037b3429864edc9fa374185819db09fcde6ea37
59162 F20110331_AACUWN santos_s_Page_066.pro
05c03b027a87481934079ca97df23d2f
c7919ba201e110d3fc5c0c4f6ded37add81b3c20
57248 F20110331_AACUVZ santos_s_Page_052.pro
c7794a71e032bd0c1ad1f03c0754e3ae
ebafd5f2f42c717941fec555a2852e67e20456d0
32275 F20110331_AACVCJ santos_s_Page_078.jpg
88d54b74fc7bc168de4b0814eaab46c7
4978e674d9ee7ccfc685ad8107971ac8f9ccdc1b
25489 F20110331_AACUXD santos_s_Page_082.pro
9e4eedc7d29b1aec8f858c8ddc3c0343
ca9549b3830097f94e203f4505ce911adbeee9f7
44885 F20110331_AACVBU santos_s_Page_063.jpg
130de125e4b4e9e6d13b7c7b27c1e9f6
75aea471f3157e8f77564dfc079ed77f86f0c22b
47631 F20110331_AACUWO santos_s_Page_067.pro
cc696f1863de4b0642af8471caf41b14
8e53112f63fd43b39e459a27c13583c37dd33754
109190 F20110331_AACVCK santos_s_Page_079.jpg
45ad9d10104678fadd53baf332f3992f
649a967ab724c578834d7d652cd3809d582fb4b6
27393 F20110331_AACUXE santos_s_Page_083.pro
0f421a36b32d08c4fca3e21647cde50c
76959677f7fa5fa6d1b97a9afd0bee27ad343ad0
107579 F20110331_AACVBV santos_s_Page_064.jpg
fa3bf5b053b1fa8285faf6ae3c62c01c
65c9e86328180baeb26bfaec72deff4a8445e44c
52515 F20110331_AACUWP santos_s_Page_068.pro
024a6774ba182b7012d272234b69f555
8e06e496a5eeeef2ffe79d940c92487a2221ca75
112496 F20110331_AACVCL santos_s_Page_080.jpg
377645e24cdd530b55fb339f73c1ea81
f70270122bc030ce1e4ebb9a6a2f46a9a5925707
55473 F20110331_AACUXF santos_s_Page_084.pro
a0319b5e44d5f0b70720ae1a425eec4b
72bd217a1db09625c9087fc1b9606115f0babb9a
111121 F20110331_AACVBW santos_s_Page_065.jpg
6d6b79ea7c273b822837f378cfbf0365
d4d8b931a8a2ce4b392ee7328843b32b6c3d4684
59219 F20110331_AACUWQ santos_s_Page_069.pro
62117a0afdef4c40d3b877ea66357ac8
c8f935dbccba4356ae6d4d3ba685f85ccde049ab
118427 F20110331_AACVCM santos_s_Page_081.jpg
35149dbdf79fd996ee02894f838a175a
df0b4e2b6be00748d247a5fe997f9efa4bf2129a
55540 F20110331_AACUXG santos_s_Page_085.pro
5e01aa5aebfed0f0e0029b1709432c22
c021bc207e3c0b7b70554fc1361af2a0daa3e05d
117783 F20110331_AACVBX santos_s_Page_066.jpg
dcaa632faa44c40c9ec6c7f339aebdde
480524f7f45fab23c7d1ea98bf056218f3d453c8
36900 F20110331_AACUWR santos_s_Page_070.pro
ed282999576c77a8b0b7f53a92ef0f94
0a992eb91bc6b9e13639357c428dfc79f3ed31ed
27244 F20110331_AACVDA santos_s_Page_095.jpg
64ec9f1ba754095eafd75bbb0ee01285
7aad5dad3f841ba1bb3b84f54a079b49bccca945
34480 F20110331_AACVCN santos_s_Page_082.jpg
83e405f52fd26d28a4c51c77660e7a55
bbfcf60e0e9df528d05340bf32d55699c1634d1f
60299 F20110331_AACUXH santos_s_Page_086.pro
72bd9df22f2fe57e04b13ff69ae645e4
8f3185e5a9d82fef25670d3f5e9a0bcd9f64aa48
96042 F20110331_AACVBY santos_s_Page_067.jpg
5e1e4ea54523bf84469685e0d14c1b91
2346c20293e129827e6fcad0fe34a19cdb07cfa5
33690 F20110331_AACUWS santos_s_Page_071.pro
74c25f70af6e677b6a840a2f5914b8a5
1b6e8d6aa608782a02424d0e68d97ea3ee4f484c
108248 F20110331_AACVDB santos_s_Page_096.jpg
0f9fe41aa436b4bc8ee9aa1d98398b68
ebf0a179008179a1d7ecb8122f9a35f3a1826f3f
36002 F20110331_AACVCO santos_s_Page_083.jpg
ae155f3a61e4a84eb50745cacd1f32a6
debd3445a4019796ec1ad042aea16b94c8ac7057
29299 F20110331_AACUXI santos_s_Page_087.pro
8ceaf5bed85725fd02e163aa3eca9ee9
a71dfd5b5e271d0dcdfd75ac85956727cb1671a0
103250 F20110331_AACVBZ santos_s_Page_068.jpg
5f85ca968574b8faeddc5af1c8d79d4b
2ad3402a72ebe9b22d6f7fc05457f1022db4e864
72213 F20110331_AACUWT santos_s_Page_072.pro
1c5f110157f98fd39271430a24c51060
c1465366da1a90791d79ce20f7a734f749fdef3e
114127 F20110331_AACVDC santos_s_Page_097.jpg
000918827e44e02094fad49a3add7cf1
d1d2972fb573f64333d302bcdb77d8d150f0680e
111649 F20110331_AACVCP santos_s_Page_084.jpg
7e80417eca583442ec178ba2eff159cd
35c82c21ce52765f17f25d1913aa4f61c25175ab
25589 F20110331_AACUXJ santos_s_Page_088.pro
6590f03088c9bbf7ffec95a3228caf12
a16f7b7c3be3649a7068bbc9c0cafb935920d6ae
36744 F20110331_AACUWU santos_s_Page_073.pro
781a7f3f17547d20becfa94eb94ec868
f9691237fddf830ee8c730366d945df2e4f75077
49417 F20110331_AACVDD santos_s_Page_098.jpg
78d1b9761eb71461c3af73f32d00a9d0
70cfb966436891aeb446eafe0af69133660acc30
111402 F20110331_AACVCQ santos_s_Page_085.jpg
c2a1d1a5063badabef2db6bbdca3a398
ad8d30dad0b1d67b52010dc11c1a0616d7c406d9
56467 F20110331_AACUXK santos_s_Page_089.pro
68b9dfd39d53ef2dd028eaf06cb6d186
00c3df77e9507eb6497bc416711cb896f2697d42
58089 F20110331_AACUWV santos_s_Page_074.pro
32aea1ca364c1f5b32325dd91fb7ec76
ef0409aec666a683ae0d9a20576bdb32b5996d8d
50086 F20110331_AACVDE santos_s_Page_099.jpg
a5cdfa683d43246ed10934426e7e7313
4fe5e33a1d36e8b1b079f567855ecff9cdbaa102
118922 F20110331_AACVCR santos_s_Page_086.jpg
c445412e822faaf9de7db74d69331104
1efce7249f5d33c4c8c3aab16fb565591dabe85b
56737 F20110331_AACUWW santos_s_Page_075.pro
05ca95ee67820fb1a3d94329ce5f4ca0
121b1d9587448dc0888da7f60eb1074ec0ae07cd
91805 F20110331_AACVDF santos_s_Page_100.jpg
671d10789d9805ce1ac41094a74a16a1
5f0b07be0a80eb1d84daa6e9a47ff89d046770cc
36830 F20110331_AACVCS santos_s_Page_087.jpg
60d8792d60e65d35b8a8f71ee5262357
3988245ec163cf8ce4ed090d618d3fb21491a070
56697 F20110331_AACUXL santos_s_Page_090.pro
44bea46b207c3386d9aad5e43f299ac4
b144bcf6c8930fd7536b933eb61ce095c080cdda
55664 F20110331_AACUWX santos_s_Page_076.pro
935323ea1a0c32bb66693df1363a9a79
4576a289066ca17b403c552c650122aefbeef95b
115232 F20110331_AACVDG santos_s_Page_101.jpg
fb18ba285d2063759dda351a646ebcb2
b88197ae83bf01fd450a2c94d2b39365eb582402
54711 F20110331_AACUYA santos_s_Page_105.pro
1fc1d27a9c2dfbd25a213d856fdb07f9
2fb8ba9b86d9519c8949e102e861ee09d163020f
53898 F20110331_AACUXM santos_s_Page_091.pro
9c0d930216ef7b8b27681cbe48b43033
1c89c305a2d515af0fb9cb45630239719eafd3e2
24177 F20110331_AACUWY santos_s_Page_077.pro
ac5e0e9b52a4991874274516b26735bc
12926cb29e8bdbb409e169a2a12c3e08f81c6713
47822 F20110331_AACVDH santos_s_Page_102.jpg
b1a262566f25dd807b1fe76c7485dda4
93815195cc8571fd1218fb5be0391a3ba4cf1d71
22563 F20110331_AACUYB santos_s_Page_106.pro
2c6b5a992b707876c7855ddf08597ea3
8a79cd53fe5da20d5223d9aa6d3af478b8b26b68
32605 F20110331_AACVCT santos_s_Page_088.jpg
b9731055686ca16785d4e8bbebe09579
f95e0d078862b3d6997e89e24787f4c9d5473aab
59040 F20110331_AACUXN santos_s_Page_092.pro
b7a6b7e6c68bcc00b1ebb6a88c4723ac
3fe445c9fbcc35fdd289fef4c09a1ea38e079773
24954 F20110331_AACUWZ santos_s_Page_078.pro
5f567969181cbee8c2d7e6c516e21af2
d4076f6caa1c0e9af42fad3243660a7f143354c1
45915 F20110331_AACVDI santos_s_Page_103.jpg
a5be42b4977995b45586be201677c668
0055d2c66dda1a5dec1170a2d389eb050a42af5f
51535 F20110331_AACUYC santos_s_Page_107.pro
e5038578e0cc4dbb4a1ad4fa510b6092
a4e540bf8e099be7c9b53ec28fb2f64f67f63ff1
113975 F20110331_AACVCU santos_s_Page_089.jpg
cc51e52cc1ce59cf38f43457117b7f3c
648dceaeda3b046fe54c4bb83a6df554ff84deb2
35480 F20110331_AACUXO santos_s_Page_093.pro
de7aba5f45983c8ac17530895101761f
faac1825c495e2c6c03325d261de39787c3d3376
25182 F20110331_AACVDJ santos_s_Page_104.jpg
e6b5d59bdd53d433a855ea1106a2c36e
9b6e7a829d7fc03646e82766dec42b2d3f2436a6
54985 F20110331_AACUYD santos_s_Page_108.pro
db65762b2039cae4b3732b8847aefc25
b53ef9f7fad6864a405e9138dcef59132768ca8b
35740 F20110331_AACUXP santos_s_Page_094.pro
588293b7f9e209feff788e2e302dbcb1
01cf42425e53fd28a1699c27010a65f94e87efcc
109102 F20110331_AACVDK santos_s_Page_105.jpg
14a580a38c9eb6bb819172c1b9f5e9d5
98f2bb345b65261b362765676cdbfd953e026312
55174 F20110331_AACUYE santos_s_Page_109.pro
b92ad37b5c5345134c3f6fca6725f54d
403e95f73f7367ad3e6642cdf68b6349e39131e2
114242 F20110331_AACVCV santos_s_Page_090.jpg
a346b92fbfa2ad0ba43544910316450d
94730419f16da5ffbc1b6d7e9485e77411c91d86
17486 F20110331_AACUXQ santos_s_Page_095.pro
cad80bcea9bfe81470f1070d061e3317
2f822483d4046b3bd631cc18e7767fb2763bb290
47168 F20110331_AACVDL santos_s_Page_106.jpg
9d4a9d72506939cab221b5547ac8ec4a
3477f95ea903e0b392c73096ce15dd713aabded2
54710 F20110331_AACUYF santos_s_Page_110.pro
bc9d25902b71a684ebdcd329900ca9f5
89d463959c33eea0e670215f7e6f04f30b69631a
108629 F20110331_AACVCW santos_s_Page_091.jpg
5de4612842fbf04f3eb00ee05ae4e627
a45168c274372ccf75307a219eea891391403721
54739 F20110331_AACUXR santos_s_Page_096.pro
cc0a8fab2672cb39cb1ab7264a0b9a64
385480dfea82ecc086a2e2850c9890eb5892b841
113071 F20110331_AACVEA santos_s_Page_121.jpg
408fee98cdbff2daee8ed8fe8c43d632
764c4e6cbe54047776951478fa1f74d535e6ecaa
102361 F20110331_AACVDM santos_s_Page_107.jpg
7c2d5a7b27aaadb9acec9e452baddf93
66ed730cbfef57a093d7213155ffb95c8b54cc05
54446 F20110331_AACUYG santos_s_Page_111.pro
d28794a70a28726d19d45b5d9b7b593b
3426b80c0023d6bdf3caf6f05a548b353c4d2dc1
116720 F20110331_AACVCX santos_s_Page_092.jpg
e5f1bda9d35f13358c2fce6eba2c68dd
22c0c652407f7ee5abf8ed48ae60c076c79f5d24
58618 F20110331_AACUXS santos_s_Page_097.pro
9463ead9f79cd795bc7c6dcb58212271
980711643e43fe7031efe93fd2eab7e9b9edd232
33980 F20110331_AACVEB santos_s_Page_122.jpg
e7524374f4b1f73914cf16ce15f53e37
a940144e970be59a41a82321d4bed83943d38ad5
107716 F20110331_AACVDN santos_s_Page_108.jpg
d1cf7518a9064fbd32e8b1bf7f1e2d58
901def8c4c68c1488c9c62e62b2a62b0267ad45d
55949 F20110331_AACUYH santos_s_Page_112.pro
a1ef8f12865a318fc9cd7bd38b9377b3
792a2e8c03f47ce2824abc9a8c0801f89706749c
45648 F20110331_AACVCY santos_s_Page_093.jpg
61c1f6edb0a538e8dc20014d3e49f789
6e49aabea797242c593c21a41c8791eecce36417
42403 F20110331_AACUXT santos_s_Page_098.pro
29213959ae1b4d363da7bf23fdefd82c
ab466505b2ef28d641c20ad3b2d8a8cf696cf4e3
43505 F20110331_AACVEC santos_s_Page_123.jpg
a6d90f43f3e9538dc7fecfcbec82ccf9
1961e782e9726a9b1920f61c16f2fa08ffcec6fe
109414 F20110331_AACVDO santos_s_Page_109.jpg
75dca08fd1befa9534d9140b186873bf
74f940859db215dfa5f5970a8cac07fdbcda7d23
54965 F20110331_AACUYI santos_s_Page_113.pro
1fd1ed5cb24c60a488478ff85339ae8f
dd91e01ab5899d10366a024ce33d8eba597dc74e
44314 F20110331_AACVCZ santos_s_Page_094.jpg
07276dc6da524c83cf65935236a0d713
7764b4868aa0753aa2f09442c095537bceccd65a
38367 F20110331_AACUXU santos_s_Page_099.pro
5af4351432516d740bf9810370f7be7a
4751644e47c9855ffdb60c9724566c8ee9a9c29c
27321 F20110331_AACVED santos_s_Page_124.jpg
1057658bfe265b98318869ed5d886868
0036104819bde307900048af6f85ed1be6052ff7
108485 F20110331_AACVDP santos_s_Page_110.jpg
c4f646e4fecd532907fa73096c271a5c
930c78f206f9ae551a056e6b6cef087281ab59b3
56970 F20110331_AACUYJ santos_s_Page_114.pro
143e13b7a81b760d9d5529b9a7f79cd3
092caf5b3cdeec37ce5bf250057fad807601c04d
F20110331_AACUXV santos_s_Page_100.pro
88fe2c700c1426841adf2c4a0a21b54d
701182ed51ea9d67d15987326d22b00d645b902f
25248 F20110331_AACVEE santos_s_Page_125.jpg
45bbc823f364aad8a4aff6c3ac3115dc
74d1d35f60c919f80f34f95d714c968a547eb2ba
108980 F20110331_AACVDQ santos_s_Page_111.jpg
e76073cc33f2215366513cee8a8c43da
b2e538410519ce15bd4792f5d6ba7526106b07cb
55183 F20110331_AACUYK santos_s_Page_115.pro
5e33fc9a4a9197c2fee658f9344f6898
918a85d63bc3e67fe5abcbaf0dbae1adc4049579
57903 F20110331_AACUXW santos_s_Page_101.pro
8dd32e0ef64991d50c9ad8b44a73a517
ee630038e8c509274d30902729efa64de550e5ee
42298 F20110331_AACVEF santos_s_Page_126.jpg
94830535091ff913e790019daa750ed6
e6509c2042f069920e19df279991af6ba37ea5e4
111932 F20110331_AACVDR santos_s_Page_112.jpg
c96be90ef69dc731babb3c6e29eb23e5
d9cbccc7db7af48797d229b48f816887898e48da
55149 F20110331_AACUYL santos_s_Page_116.pro
8eea9a0eadccce2390a5be5d728a7ec4
aad9d3a1295ae5a7828cd4546ac39bafd5f0abf2
36490 F20110331_AACUXX santos_s_Page_102.pro
f58a97a18c4dfbf81ac8678aaeeb17c4
5cbd22d5418d80853602d0f6ecfd85e608a869d6
54627 F20110331_AACVEG santos_s_Page_127.jpg
e8c5dba5370961bff8af81a3ccf5b18c
37b435c082131e68211f7d2b6e33e00718225532
23028 F20110331_AACUZA santos_s_Page_131.pro
3e1d5d90c9810953effbb399b4cc3113
752cb46eba8319123d9c291dbc668a3d24b19c55
109785 F20110331_AACVDS santos_s_Page_113.jpg
3b894dd7cb721963542a979f16d7dd59
d82c3054c0de57c2d6cfcbbdb3df42e9decad467
35940 F20110331_AACUXY santos_s_Page_103.pro
288b27a5b86b182956f3d0054ebb2908
9326fea4e4e4f4e9b38e73ae7eb6abc45729d72c
57779 F20110331_AACVEH santos_s_Page_128.jpg
f02c4608fc505a139fd14c1686bd2776
d12ba62d413359bcc99facf9fdb070e188daa9ba
21753 F20110331_AACUZB santos_s_Page_132.pro
9acdeb58910992f18007c93853f3777a
829eecdc9b449ac2f801ac602cc842011a183dff
113930 F20110331_AACVDT santos_s_Page_114.jpg
4f37c539afc7f301b55ec58231af2bf2
81ba90c6b0f2cd7d6e0ed2e5b3a68c2cdf3bdfd5
52517 F20110331_AACUYM santos_s_Page_117.pro
70af566002c1c2ecd801dbd83455cbd6
fdaa8ebf57e92fcfba410c799347034b27efc465
16100 F20110331_AACUXZ santos_s_Page_104.pro
86af5a56045c317450dea950096e0dd5
3b29b25977c7d2025e8d0c2e5259ccc3d3d50c2c
55616 F20110331_AACVEI santos_s_Page_129.jpg
d54bd8482d9abd8e5dc5328c0faa286d
3e231e77143aa377a4fb22d2adff1454aa10679b
29677 F20110331_AACUZC santos_s_Page_133.pro
ac95dfb89b0f7f9abce4e94e6b36d317
a8f73ed01380a3113c0cf0ae7d18b6e297613c21
109246 F20110331_AACVDU santos_s_Page_115.jpg
011b09d86ee669168cb98e6463e63e9b
8508cb4c2e386ddb20c73c030cf2389006e11347
52160 F20110331_AACUYN santos_s_Page_118.pro
f686f1a2145b2645c16b33af8b523138
6fd9efdcd205fd444479eaf2ce31cc409e57c3c7
57547 F20110331_AACVEJ santos_s_Page_130.jpg
a6a295d0cd4b886e00733ca13ff86974
316a666f62b1e90b474766f7929d4a95393bda81
20755 F20110331_AACUZD santos_s_Page_134.pro
1f1746db30be6654138bf9db8906189a
aa93b29c092681e009dfcc816f2908516b10f995
110976 F20110331_AACVDV santos_s_Page_116.jpg
99b9728afe81269c33a3f1f5cbf1dceb
a599acba1f3a8b2192950d2c9bf6971315e90395
53759 F20110331_AACUYO santos_s_Page_119.pro
eb1f2ba96b432736728b950c70522345
6cec7a20127a8424ff33540eb6d6d7e3ab833377
62349 F20110331_AACVEK santos_s_Page_131.jpg
6eb31658184a343b3fcc590935fd1b39
efd348fc95d926d6b66b8d7381c18d5cc83335de
49847 F20110331_AACUZE santos_s_Page_135.pro
9e314743ff9f90ef933623ff4cfbc597
9b44a4ac8a2b9c480193351e33da52e5216a825d
55053 F20110331_AACUYP santos_s_Page_120.pro
6f52f539f9dca6300283f176035d714c
c8dc9a1d3f7430659bd8ef88859467c04b00ba5f
44251 F20110331_AACVEL santos_s_Page_132.jpg
9112b20faefcadba93d56c972a4f2e21
fa30f40c7046ac3d595557ec5ac0983a4b142b8b
60918 F20110331_AACUZF santos_s_Page_136.pro
273681d34568fd118ad173e8a940da20
1f9f6d60adfa8a4bec64422643df0c82322c814f
104984 F20110331_AACVDW santos_s_Page_117.jpg
97896857534d2b7f092795734c5ffba6
b25c3b4c77e98b188bba56209b971392b643d994
57772 F20110331_AACUYQ santos_s_Page_121.pro
f37bd679709e85ab4f4f7a51a27a1b1c
c89f2d8285a7f34042c8398e074c74cf70a58885
53115 F20110331_AACVEM santos_s_Page_133.jpg
e441c35de249358e0db30e53a96f4d78
77720a1700b6eaf583a96ecd2b3470187b44228b
54267 F20110331_AACUZG santos_s_Page_137.pro
dae658b199cddf91bd129333371d58ae
d5abf2e2db3807bd407fd576a005ced3fd92553a
104964 F20110331_AACVDX santos_s_Page_118.jpg
0f99eadbb1dbf2ddc42897731afbfdaa
d2f46ad4a184a8c92628af59795ae77812b59c46
15430 F20110331_AACUYR santos_s_Page_122.pro
741c6a2589e243f21fd8940cc060689f
ca567e531e8b83ce45335612fe03d25ab4e8f87e
1051974 F20110331_AACVFA santos_s_Page_007.jp2
5d036e83b36f6c9fda38c758bca34a2c
29848afad8b0d95cc64ee69e81e1b85d4e25f71c
31958 F20110331_AACVEN santos_s_Page_134.jpg
e5ce840c358cab644e00037b3e0025f7
c2bb26f1f6b8bbbf6fb04a9ced19188745945ccf
54059 F20110331_AACUZH santos_s_Page_138.pro
443a46b67daddfeceb1cb9ad541d2b74
9e60c9dd032867fc46bc28494404e28ff12afd1b
108316 F20110331_AACVDY santos_s_Page_119.jpg
3010026d69617787babac84d7cc843a4
b086d557068ea6b387e27ef3eaf8741c6032f6b6
23408 F20110331_AACUYS santos_s_Page_123.pro
49dd2ad4de33c9af4d3bda7cfdeaf6ae
c52cf7dabcc9ce8e127545435767b2ffa271c4c4
1051973 F20110331_AACVFB santos_s_Page_008.jp2
19f3e80b9ad8164ff96ed70efbc4ce8f
39153a957fe73a54e1b773efa7c77a59bfeb92b4
102472 F20110331_AACVEO santos_s_Page_135.jpg
b2a0680d3e6f5e669677f893cf3506e3
e273b06f980b26e99b77e098c489b52eac6823f0
11504 F20110331_AACUZI santos_s_Page_139.pro
9b1adec9f230c24a405599750076be3b
15cea2e9d1d5749fd7012cdc0a9993bf8c72b5ef
110192 F20110331_AACVDZ santos_s_Page_120.jpg
264802801e66d8bb84f76943dfb0b29f
c97d8017abd7bfe56bca602e44bd80cd21c7d7a4
10190 F20110331_AACUYT santos_s_Page_124.pro
b58817a8ab520c25d22d4fe3b071ace7
5d1b16d11fd38f1daa8dd2a91af5c751ec79a7b3
154126 F20110331_AACVFC santos_s_Page_009.jp2
4b2a66dcae4c56410c5fa9d406abacdc
73b6d06ad89a8242507e80d86f835bca0328fed0
122906 F20110331_AACVEP santos_s_Page_136.jpg
c99f1c69f3eb1b2cac6df618ebaf0ab0
fc89ce87c8b083fbe1fbea29af359d22ea95c9f3
11151 F20110331_AACUZJ santos_s_Page_140.pro
2aaefd2e46f4f950626236d69a8b1b76
ccd75d25bd8a3ba7072ed945775ab98c7b9ae99b
8055 F20110331_AACUYU santos_s_Page_125.pro
974f7d22ba2accd8a3405e9b1fd42287
656baac2a45ef4aca12b0d2087b0bdeff2a0439c
1051914 F20110331_AACVFD santos_s_Page_010.jp2
77dec72a4d5d0b722700436547286e5e
c3221019274ac83f96135d0084669af1372d9e1a
110973 F20110331_AACVEQ santos_s_Page_137.jpg
c1db0bf228f5bb34ee7f3823da9c0f96
339244ac84351baa0b4751e3a32a520b76fd00de
25650 F20110331_AACUZK santos_s_Page_001.jpg
00e2b22890629d56e49947cd519aeabf
b2c92ec854d2344cf93762f12bbe67c6a3fe30f8
21362 F20110331_AACUYV santos_s_Page_126.pro
f365d310d609400a972730de4d23db9e
0875c3170d51bb4663b2b1ff328ebffc470c61b2
1051985 F20110331_AACVFE santos_s_Page_011.jp2
3a8694b178cb1854219992d16a786e3f
ff45e55b07fcec4343ce4845e70c13cf72ed5ec7
113619 F20110331_AACVER santos_s_Page_138.jpg
fb51db596a6fefb6f6dbd4cccd895024
3459ea01d8b9afa7bda29f2e28a87dc72d053cae
4277 F20110331_AACUZL santos_s_Page_002.jpg
8ad766fb00a35ae2771d61444c3d659e
44b024b75268a750fc6b8f492d2a46057f4956fc
28426 F20110331_AACUYW santos_s_Page_127.pro
a9829399037e209b8d05dbcfcd21fa74
2bd7cc6b2665dd0b441411fca622be62c00cd855
1051945 F20110331_AACVFF santos_s_Page_012.jp2
bfe562e1d88019955f4c09bc96b068a8
b720d28292f439d2ddec19e1c67fe891020c7410
28564 F20110331_AACVES santos_s_Page_139.jpg
b7154c8165a4698e0e68726894c2fe97
2ee596d30a8b88481674353f0b80ac975f9a711e
3580 F20110331_AACUZM santos_s_Page_003.jpg
5fc750ab21005d7b2148348c537b9321
00ec4491fee2cf51062705d1d830bbfd2605cf22
29370 F20110331_AACUYX santos_s_Page_128.pro
dbebdeba9ef8d74a6b3b21394da48e30
07b3d2f42b35fee59ee146fe5814fd9d27ee0fd1
1051938 F20110331_AACVFG santos_s_Page_013.jp2
f6a917e6aab73926441710b616618573
00dc57fca20bfdb922292ddc1d8888c7a688bc0d
27665 F20110331_AACVET santos_s_Page_140.jpg
fabdfa87d40991192108b4c1ef16a13e
8cf8ccd88e5b6af114ae6dfaf95d61107506e301
29706 F20110331_AACUYY santos_s_Page_129.pro
4699cc299e7edaee28a646b5009bc72a
f0c4f6d9f0e7e20b928bc65952f0eaf21c41a0c9
1051964 F20110331_AACVFH santos_s_Page_014.jp2
5cd0d5e237aeaae4b338b7ea3e4edc1a
1f6e71db8e4b66e69db6328934b1fe8c3e568aa6
249859 F20110331_AACVEU santos_s_Page_001.jp2
8be07ac3f0ff971d5c7dbe1a363dcbfa
033800bbad2aab29b84bff67d9c21e466645f798
36082 F20110331_AACUZN santos_s_Page_004.jpg
a2fa8f32ced13c103ee835ffd65c4a53
6f9f6c0f283fe3ffb926d677795994a757568635
27850 F20110331_AACUYZ santos_s_Page_130.pro
c175bd8d074ed52804fb765a985d5317
38177f24d67f88dfd7084fb6ab8562342edaa434
1051976 F20110331_AACVFI santos_s_Page_015.jp2
2a0855d89b680b700164e16c547a3de1
880e5885e150027d45d7dec5dd02bf1b52fc794a
29507 F20110331_AACVEV santos_s_Page_002.jp2
77ee6a7225f1aa128b7d0d7ee839425f
8919c4a373e9da1c344eb19c0eba24a69d457786
116991 F20110331_AACUZO santos_s_Page_005.jpg
f58999b939e416eeb78aca483ecaa4a2
e488e0df364da60af8612532356e5acc3feacb8a
1051953 F20110331_AACVFJ santos_s_Page_016.jp2
85004b9978ead888d3d54c8f683f2992
37b72dbb1ae29f8ae10856bac8734622f5e72193
21993 F20110331_AACVEW santos_s_Page_003.jp2
abd6fb98d770e3b415c96069e489a67c
d575db935c1aa6a3e4ac6b34f262a10b0762b752
108987 F20110331_AACUZP santos_s_Page_006.jpg
8f3a2900d66f6453e1f1f103e9cfbe25
28d13741f66f9f14aad2cd8c72c1ee2bef238c5f
1051968 F20110331_AACVFK santos_s_Page_017.jp2
623316a42c24e4b85bd022ef7cc04433
e46868d0948ec1470cb8435549e6ded968f7be68
90770 F20110331_AACUZQ santos_s_Page_007.jpg
b4a3ca5a4e0c6a635b9471bce8121082
697153f77c6c133fde602c349ca6dab68d6955b0
1051977 F20110331_AACVFL santos_s_Page_018.jp2
8f2933a1a7e77dca1c6cce6c67090505
e2c3321beb4c100865984706469b6fdeb9a24063
364658 F20110331_AACVEX santos_s_Page_004.jp2
3a1eb67fcbd5df384949e05daea50ba3
a79caa4df98d5a71ed1a06a2b89ef54729ecee56
101695 F20110331_AACUZR santos_s_Page_008.jpg
17ee9a2db69080f7e0abe1febd23ff1c
1bdd7f81275a4ed4fe2ab7514277a6041db0a059
1051943 F20110331_AACVGA santos_s_Page_033.jp2
7ca0b63ac82ad543f0923112a31b8dad
c2ae142d758a8f6b1941ae9218e0d640fe4ca1f3
1051972 F20110331_AACVFM santos_s_Page_019.jp2
25037752163bb7d9debdf613ce28569b
ea8ec1e892d1678906ca1d1057e6efcf4fa999cd
F20110331_AACVEY santos_s_Page_005.jp2
cee5973008e555a06215f96e2c7ebbc6
e265c5c0faf5047b05161f574b7c7579ad3c6268
16027 F20110331_AACUZS santos_s_Page_009.jpg
1ca5c6a896b548b3cb205b4b27eeef4a
4ffdd9ff462fd2d2c156fa213ec2d8006a8907ad
F20110331_AACVGB santos_s_Page_034.jp2
70333dd715d91136c98d71a8d4b1359b
38630565c952bd324777318eeae9b15188cde783
1051986 F20110331_AACVFN santos_s_Page_020.jp2
1ff8fe58a62b280f03cf9fc710f865d8
d104e6dcaa478089e44eac08d1ddd2682dafa321
F20110331_AACVEZ santos_s_Page_006.jp2
ad3f65564d000fd1877850f4a864af69
eead55cb06b865a6ef808227731ac1bd627d0b48
104101 F20110331_AACUZT santos_s_Page_010.jpg
7962c0d1f55e67aaa4dbdf7100575fe9
a42884fd39ce6e31ac96a55a66c78760509fb11b
1051957 F20110331_AACVGC santos_s_Page_035.jp2
e034b5acfee736d4faba69b69c42ceb4
cc07f74c3cbf6ff54994b4f9648ecb9d7e59499e
F20110331_AACVFO santos_s_Page_021.jp2
a0650022bb48e383083c5f0796d8a8f4
9bb65d66c89d2f0a7f84d0436759413b7c6edff9
111246 F20110331_AACUZU santos_s_Page_011.jpg
3e3b0c5d3bb1e79aa50bb834e6ec07e3
7419f4c4839d31f3b388d07cb4f039ca9b80ed26
1051979 F20110331_AACVGD santos_s_Page_036.jp2
67798698ded7771a9281296c55337372
d037cc8c3d80012db96c2f02e41efe97778056ec
1051970 F20110331_AACVFP santos_s_Page_022.jp2
fe54705b322a2d5287ee1b39608c24ef
49fa6a15b96a9fedc61486cf3be2559eb0fc4332
108133 F20110331_AACUZV santos_s_Page_012.jpg
a60a4693a209a3b232b49d01c0b319f2
9542a9c7e699d1273221701fa575170d78111403
1051892 F20110331_AACVGE santos_s_Page_037.jp2
5fe818a6668f7212a5d061e56c353648
25bc024f1f7b006d357d722f63969c2ec22cc06e
F20110331_AACVFQ santos_s_Page_023.jp2
3463d16920e828fc7985ffa9b7102e2f
d8b7925634f5178cb62c748af6fa2a34002762cb
108771 F20110331_AACUZW santos_s_Page_013.jpg
2e805a165eaea9559b5de79d9fef6d0a
8e0b793ae6f86962dc74116294b6b270ff2d3230
843048 F20110331_AACVGF santos_s_Page_038.jp2
3d3c7430bde1e3c3efc6b9a47246e6c5
4037a9565d4857f7887e39aeb3ded90316a380bd
845118 F20110331_AACVFR santos_s_Page_024.jp2
bf9a1d4b044efb90f6278d4b3d62cae4
c2cf17d15ed9565f648e8d7f522c10d13b952b6a
111851 F20110331_AACUZX santos_s_Page_014.jpg
bcce937380dfb17bd415885ec1b483e9
c0a06e297295d3f44689d7251b3d984ee9925ec2
1003799 F20110331_AACVGG santos_s_Page_039.jp2
72062e3aef124f569c98b72a9982b8e6
c15a30a469b57fa653e2de4e0ce54217ac322d44
1051982 F20110331_AACVFS santos_s_Page_025.jp2
985924fcb5cb631a45b031ff4b17deb4
7b2edf1910c100f6d3d05e17f799d5daef591f96
106988 F20110331_AACUZY santos_s_Page_015.jpg
199f58bc251b93f67f8aa63c76025ca2
78dabcfdcbfa537f95e55da15bca01f5873a6f53
1051944 F20110331_AACVGH santos_s_Page_040.jp2
327789744ce9fef6572e6a586472b8d4
d287ca06dbc851fdaa154ecc5107db3f258613c3
708208 F20110331_AACVFT santos_s_Page_026.jp2
ff88fc1b8252a1830995fb0b8554f305
4ce77e1384e3911ae8946f8817894dabc14cfd5b
109947 F20110331_AACUZZ santos_s_Page_016.jpg
b63d64f70e4b0bbce92882cff03545a5
477fb748bd547431bcb26bcd859afb5d52924e48
F20110331_AACVGI santos_s_Page_041.jp2
d4f7e4e367d8a0404becc0264cf81aa6
6d73bad57820219a11eb7a5761d1919ad9993f6a
F20110331_AACVFU santos_s_Page_027.jp2
8136dd69410c803dfe7e57723d9f6c4b
dbe3155f055462786439ec40a6debe71f32a6081
1051960 F20110331_AACVGJ santos_s_Page_042.jp2
382d5a2b123bef89d2cf69c8c5a27ba8
27d9adaea9fedc677cbd8bf9fb6dba009b2dc754
F20110331_AACVFV santos_s_Page_028.jp2
a7fa20e71247eed83f5a1689641f3c03
c773cb916dcf05be1d01d1fb03cc96bf6679ed35
F20110331_AACVGK santos_s_Page_043.jp2
1f997c76fde9d288c74532e3e55e3c53
27a2b5e2c4dce06f45229a3cb93a1795a6cebd9d
660864 F20110331_AACVFW santos_s_Page_029.jp2
dfae8a9bb2d4e4faa2e31713831c75b2
bbfdeb936ed356439ef7a3566a05abc50ad5574b
F20110331_AACVGL santos_s_Page_044.jp2
97c6f26f537e595212008305392f46da
89eba144cd7ae41a17d266a3c987c95e48aaee65
610495 F20110331_AACVFX santos_s_Page_030.jp2
5e1484a60b58a0c8677026510754990f
0380db1216ee5c660a98a5c5251071582aee3456
1051984 F20110331_AACVHA santos_s_Page_059.jp2
025e997488ae483debd191fccd4fb560
d9c382fe5992a677687e821dbc685208c688fd01
1051942 F20110331_AACVGM santos_s_Page_045.jp2
91f2a91d3c2fae0e24d3ec398be4d398
d38c473fa4e340da0a3a6a4a076bae83a187d196
1051935 F20110331_AACVHB santos_s_Page_060.jp2
a32bae48029e41b6661ad202659291a7
02898bc5af9e676bf2d965804d407dfb5ed216f7
F20110331_AACVGN santos_s_Page_046.jp2
76ca253a947fa73544024c0547de7706
49825a7945819a81bd22bad235e274e1bb021fb5
1051969 F20110331_AACVFY santos_s_Page_031.jp2
a835353395c199dca9a7c3a3d84d9e39
2f677ee8c854eff768544ff9078c15ab86c7058e
1051965 F20110331_AACVHC santos_s_Page_061.jp2
e21d4ef020181fa749edf7cf46207fef
5ec85b3751037e5dd42bad41170a9db79e6fff7e
F20110331_AACVGO santos_s_Page_047.jp2
1a24fb408f695a6e9bb1bd7ee7624e7b
2c7e024e2fcaa476c5465508a3082f2fad2e4ee4
1051923 F20110331_AACVFZ santos_s_Page_032.jp2
71f134da4b30fc2f4377831f13143879
a583cd5f254e4f4ab2973492573677b8e8d8ce24
1051971 F20110331_AACVHD santos_s_Page_062.jp2
c0c4103e7bbf12c62833f8f87b2735cf
5babba1bd8b246b5cca0ea231f0659289957969c
F20110331_AACVGP santos_s_Page_048.jp2
274a19120aa105ba410eeb4e309e6254
68d07ff9b28a31b25e582900881f1899dfe3f1ce
670910 F20110331_AACVHE santos_s_Page_063.jp2
9b7a4b183865950b0e6025ee4099eea6
79fabf794c7271428076a91b927a7a45feeff32d
1051932 F20110331_AACVGQ santos_s_Page_049.jp2
5a486bd4096b357f72d9d8d4518e1844
608aa5f30304f7727f3ee452112e1d5d2a726ca0
F20110331_AACVHF santos_s_Page_064.jp2
98bc477d3a04ac30b0c820ffa67d7a42
3b7acfd58de928a7449d78af8e2fa4a06fa532ca
F20110331_AACVGR santos_s_Page_050.jp2
f82e1dd2b429c388e71615550b27ddd2
e0372599b33fa4fd7dad6dc78782759b5d78c83a
F20110331_AACVHG santos_s_Page_065.jp2
db3bfff9b6c1bf169dbb7f3b81285ab8
8d7970a7d46328186e08de8a5f5fe47ab820b4dd
F20110331_AACVGS santos_s_Page_051.jp2
fc073573c27169b7d60c9267d615cb79
354107b5b69e3b048d781dc0b45112b49f0fbcc8
F20110331_AACVHH santos_s_Page_066.jp2
29e19c4aac21fcce3c3effe933b3271b
b699ded4ad9554808128ec35302776a82bc6126c
1051925 F20110331_AACVGT santos_s_Page_052.jp2
6f25d87650fa78eb4e3d355ecee18fc9
236b552f0cc6c4b217a63326c790c7e96f9599d4
F20110331_AACVHI santos_s_Page_067.jp2
21a7063b99557a8665e5e72c0a00d025
4c0e2d20e0823d78ecea4e8be2ca3e377b8ed423
F20110331_AACVGU santos_s_Page_053.jp2
51159b07e3999c2e3924a7888936bacc
41d3864788398bb8016975a297c4bbcb723cd669
1051911 F20110331_AACVHJ santos_s_Page_068.jp2
eb7b2cbfda6b1b99daf6af8f38732230
f10b5d152fea639da0cc1951acd73aab09d2976c
1051930 F20110331_AACVGV santos_s_Page_054.jp2
5fa7ff60fc73edfb3373d195f8f815ef
0f23a4e723922a734670d6e20027bd587f7e303a
F20110331_AACVHK santos_s_Page_069.jp2
253292944084f25237d0e1635af329e1
82ce3d61f179d3476f0d98a491bdc6fa7cd1fdf6
193185 F20110331_AACVGW santos_s_Page_055.jp2
882cb024e9e35c7d8acf5193379469e7
a288b7765eec54e49132e8dccf0289135069eb2c
671292 F20110331_AACVHL santos_s_Page_070.jp2
18ecb7470f28650b8fcb93be4518423f
a56be4cb5c011aa5c27d676be686444ece97148c
F20110331_AACVGX santos_s_Page_056.jp2
7b7cbe2642c48297caa7a77d645ae377
a94bce7ef795f1ce19de7ffdf5db934f203cba3a
658831 F20110331_AACVHM santos_s_Page_071.jp2
c4e41df9f7d873f624c35db1b124eec0
b370415faa91be9a2571a16f5b9efbc03dc5a9df
595546 F20110331_AACVGY santos_s_Page_057.jp2
a678c53ddb1d6acb312d4c75fd48026d
9f4a52d9f7526e04e265eccb37967088ce1e9ddb
1051929 F20110331_AACVIA santos_s_Page_085.jp2
f9c5edad29e351fa790e51be22e541c3
c19ddeaaefb2a44e8b38403b4d4a80f4fe132f59
1048075 F20110331_AACVHN santos_s_Page_072.jp2
35089db5006d9b6196f8ff8556112cc5
3ac3b620342896bbf3df15b1115df37f095ccac2
F20110331_AACVIB santos_s_Page_086.jp2
6a00b26545a5a3517a3e36b616dfff6a
90fc65f8d38858d2b3f8ba36159ec98bbd44b969
488487 F20110331_AACVHO santos_s_Page_073.jp2
bfdf74ca48a7674345786f43bcec1adb
2ddf11be65c345bbb783a3cc553c0ec09acf40c9
359796 F20110331_AACVGZ santos_s_Page_058.jp2
731bab7c0e876213320dd7a6f33cee0c
7c81adf69d067e86e7a61955ca64f8617d034c28
546777 F20110331_AACVIC santos_s_Page_087.jp2
8ccbfadaca9088ad57f852afff13a722
cfbd386fe76b0523cbe6259a15f9e20cec2d817a
F20110331_AACVHP santos_s_Page_074.jp2
47c5d7d4b9c2ab3eeb4ffe144dc243de
ef4a17417ad528ef9135e59d7060a435438cd285
481773 F20110331_AACVID santos_s_Page_088.jp2
53a819b72031e391a5e9bd09bd894ec7
6c0aa969e7081e6b2405fd42c99dcb88ab5a01e9
F20110331_AACVIE santos_s_Page_089.jp2
ac740bb3a14395134613fef02f7f777c
969c3c8e683afb67d96c25a857773dfd3aeeda37
F20110331_AACVHQ santos_s_Page_075.jp2
eb420b32dc414e054f67fb25f7494a77
43168aa432496abe4f2116141ef42f4b1b10da61
F20110331_AACVIF santos_s_Page_090.jp2
bfc2f2067b6b757e24cd2df52fa0eeba
b7ce1f50f87370ab3d5cdcd13ec71a5e94765a74
1051952 F20110331_AACVHR santos_s_Page_076.jp2
881e5ca7f82ad41774df00002ce36439
1abfd42a463e3cd520514417b9d64f3652146172
F20110331_AACVIG santos_s_Page_091.jp2
eaa58ef6ff13529629aa0497e8e3633e
dd42eb55071d734efdf6dc2d5d0429b2d612045b
495357 F20110331_AACVHS santos_s_Page_077.jp2
c3c0f19ce67e20877a37d0c83d7352fd
e32bc2ad942ed70b3f7bea950b0f8cd0a3ad60aa
F20110331_AACVIH santos_s_Page_092.jp2
56e78201cdacad9b077bd4bf81ba9af6
4d17f95d584214283ac6cc74bd04d1b0a1d3c625
493741 F20110331_AACVHT santos_s_Page_078.jp2
550f54bf51a32e37c0ac2a4904319826
d8e81769073f6013e37db1802dc3628ee1d438ea
684849 F20110331_AACVII santos_s_Page_093.jp2
44a9fa47413da18c83564e72fc81ae9d
f9f1f473838ef0a0d40a5e1a4cdcadec4598b93d
F20110331_AACVHU santos_s_Page_079.jp2
52f21ccbf6b6b64e127ce01e43afcc00
554bd91ca7647578a1250448512a0a24a0dd4a85
666288 F20110331_AACVIJ santos_s_Page_094.jp2
3695a90a2c39f9fe3505c8c50ef6245e
57a9fe5f7ef162d9f38bf60ce30c5b8708ef62f2
F20110331_AACVHV santos_s_Page_080.jp2
de250e717363b83a75e3ca33d572b2cc
37a82caa48153d86df4b3e037bcfd983984cdd0a
397464 F20110331_AACVIK santos_s_Page_095.jp2
eeaa91b0dffb0747439f3c57e006be66
49016c8b8161b55adb12f82147fe40176b5a8684
F20110331_AACVHW santos_s_Page_081.jp2
cc4378269b540cebbe830ffc3c440215
b283ab7fe09ad625d15a0233a01ae376f518912f
F20110331_AACVIL santos_s_Page_096.jp2
b4f4293b45af5f178b6f94e29423dbd0
a4be6e3b8e4dbb033f55a7d4c16b4f0987455ffa
510322 F20110331_AACVHX santos_s_Page_082.jp2
0d7bf6addcc31b24e3ac7f993d4f3572
86d734e56a62b072432cbf8706d3d3e9e4b0c992
F20110331_AACVJA santos_s_Page_111.jp2
8e4101a5a0adcd8d7492473ab69452ed
edb20164d15adf2b4cca683200fbad6548ce3cc5
1051975 F20110331_AACVIM santos_s_Page_097.jp2
3c6645127b39d318c3143a9c958db621
201cb171a9396e0a8e17108adb22eb10cf672137
542879 F20110331_AACVHY santos_s_Page_083.jp2
34d64444a6c9f6b75dcc48fba8d48462
024b7caaffd21d96b5d68e953344d22c4d50e050
F20110331_AACVJB santos_s_Page_112.jp2
4b92981ef4c26a816b317ce487d29d52
b7e4b7f2eb1430b75d2332e27bebd0a7d87aafa0
739348 F20110331_AACVIN santos_s_Page_098.jp2
4f49ccc2052867f82157e84a4ece6fa0
dbfe61ee657ea5475bf2676b1f560d38734c7983
F20110331_AACVHZ santos_s_Page_084.jp2
fb925967e202b6e24be96904168e563e
a57f3d80200ec2f4a1ecdb1f36dfc10c74b95dba
1051927 F20110331_AACVJC santos_s_Page_113.jp2
3432804b49500e7583a05cfe59103540
67862e73948f507501cea132e4cea0c2ddb0d54d
719977 F20110331_AACVIO santos_s_Page_099.jp2
b35498090097c5b0ecf0db7878f6f143
0df99856dd0cf6cc78e0c068a6e5f3faa9d2aaa3
1051966 F20110331_AACVJD santos_s_Page_114.jp2
e36484872fcd6719522add4ea7e4445a
24e42d367f69efb2642bcd85701eaecd7c4c77f7
995635 F20110331_AACVIP santos_s_Page_100.jp2
39a23e4816c45dc503530ef4b19451a9
96ec749f5e04aebf81b2fa13913535f514c6257f
F20110331_AACVJE santos_s_Page_115.jp2
1f3ba2c6e51d39b29af5ecd37b14c37b
09ec1ecbe5494ce736b33d8e7da4e777fb3a7887
1051949 F20110331_AACVIQ santos_s_Page_101.jp2
5e23c3a81b2090a2b514c9b36237f51e
bfbd76bf5638ab5a88b0dde7e93b521482359d40
F20110331_AACVJF santos_s_Page_116.jp2
5bd853ec9c13bb5caa1aa9c36c63d9b4
4cb4e774eedfbb0908768b9aa5eb2d02298dda0a
701854 F20110331_AACVIR santos_s_Page_102.jp2
1b1fb294e2ccfdd3bcc446cfc92ce75f
c5c653e460abd817253b0f50d7b0b25cb524d79b
F20110331_AACVJG santos_s_Page_117.jp2
ad7dff722f52898c57eb3c0768270b43
b53c1d71d86b4430aa7b788a799d28052e227de7
665025 F20110331_AACVIS santos_s_Page_103.jp2
937e614beaa3a3ff1efb336eeb931939
ce595fe3cc84598689e9ed84031ab084069b44e7
F20110331_AACVJH santos_s_Page_118.jp2
a9a9db702601df409852678117359026
f0109552b487e3b6727476fdc3ceb9c7259e5094
353473 F20110331_AACVIT santos_s_Page_104.jp2
0b1266430bda199297850e421e8bb413
c9d849f6d9277e2a8499902e72cb9ac1e30898d0
F20110331_AACVJI santos_s_Page_119.jp2
8c87a855c8337fab38dff724d288f10f
acfdfa5924133c791797caee52364c351a0cc97f
1051895 F20110331_AACVIU santos_s_Page_105.jp2
81fa4665a9c4ef2c7c4a7244fa237248
d1959b293d1b404aa068f453ef41ebe7dc223215
1051963 F20110331_AACVJJ santos_s_Page_120.jp2
d3bdc28246eae93f1277c09fd367d7df
e0fa28350ce23b1806a42a487b9697751c7965f8
510289 F20110331_AACVIV santos_s_Page_106.jp2
d8e530d859bc0213b19057cc3256435b
9a4ead4ecb89c937307f4a96c8fc5b631427dc33
1051946 F20110331_AACVJK santos_s_Page_121.jp2
14a1b3bd8e6ca9f54c390e1155b13b0a
9e9215166f4815ab645d14236dcddd37f5240527
F20110331_AACVIW santos_s_Page_107.jp2
6bb1295addc26616aadf30d1b0a9c701
7ed689186ab76eb29ab4db57bbb2808957eb3717
352687 F20110331_AACVJL santos_s_Page_122.jp2
c0567fde5505056fb0b2d31e69939cbb
5738672e4cc51b34226583fc7122e54197a91d66
F20110331_AACVIX santos_s_Page_108.jp2
55f1d1d86e3f758cb255a9f56798749a
47e802c0ec952aedd0fcdcadc12c06fc222212ab
436128 F20110331_AACVJM santos_s_Page_123.jp2
df4970d5db3b5ea57b02251df7ee3f12
3330e361cf6f4dc9e2b30c6d7f8c65b020524064
F20110331_AACVIY santos_s_Page_109.jp2
e368c17841e5e7d8a8e8c55c46fecfd6
27d6a3afc85ea5e9d664031d92e6d81ecb5dd325
F20110331_AACVKA santos_s_Page_137.jp2
22556151624a6c850777c273ef25d615
f7c3ac83f9d255c28de04f4bf07bef74b7517af1
242818 F20110331_AACVJN santos_s_Page_124.jp2
bbf0a7bec2992d440ab0f4aabacca838
160a94e4da581d19b99ec63f29766e697f36f9c6
1051915 F20110331_AACVIZ santos_s_Page_110.jp2
d059bebea061959096e72359e6d4b142
92ec6c52ffb7089c5242f173139855dd4943a206
1051956 F20110331_AACVKB santos_s_Page_138.jp2
1d4cd39c3db2dd81337da85bf00fb249
2b65b363644022bda861279de93ca1b9093b2d69
208573 F20110331_AACVJO santos_s_Page_125.jp2
47b4c8604d8899bcb427805a8b288eec
2ce7857abe98a82a461066b333b1269496bc1540
325095 F20110331_AACVKC santos_s_Page_139.jp2
f611f658203104b2f343d94ce89d1a54
47d5513667729b30d51018c61d06b459f5d8d481
423064 F20110331_AACVJP santos_s_Page_126.jp2
8596ea70c24b3d45c5c89b3dc2654add
2ce7593d78c5199539c332ca2d57fd93eb0f59b1
269756 F20110331_AACVKD santos_s_Page_140.jp2
8a8906f0593d3d4efe8f6434a6c57d66
a82baedfcb8f4a2f20077610313e46e3d9a732c5
538945 F20110331_AACVJQ santos_s_Page_127.jp2
ae2d17f097a4aeaf57a66a81a2de1bcf
0db1a9daae4d5b8f5d447447b9e12ada63d7dc2f
35309 F20110331_AACVKE santos_s_Page_108.QC.jpg
c911e1de00e2d07bdc8847814f133646
1a66a6f4d108d58230bace2d9753faba107adcbf
566294 F20110331_AACVJR santos_s_Page_128.jp2
2ea64ee709e8cf5feec15f9519cf140a
413cdd95f375f7e63651e6e8379f7587da9c5afa
F20110331_AACVKF santos_s_Page_100.QC.jpg
e6d1a13e4ff6431744a92a103b8cdb06
7efb7b72dccf211a4208821ce4a39f3853354117
559769 F20110331_AACVJS santos_s_Page_129.jp2
69e20a5f6f4b80b992eb27dc6581cc98
4aeda1cfb7d4473c21c33780df2504ce17bdba33
8774 F20110331_AACVKG santos_s_Page_034thm.jpg
a1cc8ee39c6e44b0612366b01692b2e0
64a48f803efe820f30c219548b52444d52969392
582837 F20110331_AACVJT santos_s_Page_130.jp2
2988d55049b2542e0a72c22b1fb3b39a
8242ef24ec953ad9d4db6b2e60faa028c966df82
5317 F20110331_AACVKH santos_s_Page_128thm.jpg
58a46eb5b54c2bebc427c521514f6d7d
da6a7490cc8c389e77288edeebcd963a7b3c6b7a
603107 F20110331_AACVJU santos_s_Page_131.jp2
af3ab8d4393f09c1b970f18dbfb1eb46
a843057c6eac6794c7faedb7fd97d87a977d1e40
35878 F20110331_AACVKI santos_s_Page_084.QC.jpg
23ce96eba68c0580c93d31566519d401
5873d4d5e4c0117d747c432cf1d108b2edc5be38
479012 F20110331_AACVJV santos_s_Page_132.jp2
c672a943e870db52aba98455daba0f86
beae0fdb2e6a093a72dcdb3b668e0112b1f20b07
18798 F20110331_AACVKJ santos_s_Page_130.QC.jpg
9b34fdf4ced446a9771d7d5a0c9d05d8
b76d23787052f2f6bf4a1dd9c9bb642064275d88
544654 F20110331_AACVJW santos_s_Page_133.jp2
b2e9fb3672f82f0b823e72010464ff48
f55a5d4f9100fb8fab9d3aa5f21a70b34b3f9429
17020 F20110331_AACVKK santos_s_Page_106.QC.jpg
a4e1e8057ed5c0045399a6823b4d7df6
7dbace11f3ff1095f46275478813ce1c2d02aa41
334243 F20110331_AACVJX santos_s_Page_134.jp2
3979c452cbd98d58d2bf19eb6abaccc7
b3e07b38fad6ec57c7157b91471f6f4ed464e0cc
8593 F20110331_AACVKL santos_s_Page_012thm.jpg
ee583eafce40cdde83a56c2590a113c7
2420d8594d31b445689a818d6dc5597d82a1aa10
F20110331_AACVJY santos_s_Page_135.jp2
49cbd0d416e7a870a19aaad3b6095e40
5bcb98bcadb15cd9791aaf3fb3ac1f7d40afffae
32892 F20110331_AACVLA santos_s_Page_137.QC.jpg
155fb3bcd529087cc736f289ca224742
01477bcdc4a5996002802894e93bf6b0ff0bdfdf
9166 F20110331_AACVKM santos_s_Page_066thm.jpg
62d7d6c2430df606e7a032697311bae6
01786aab7d22a77cf3c519cf1a7caae88e4fd38f
F20110331_AACVJZ santos_s_Page_136.jp2
93526bc891176dfba50fb90a400ab225
62438593420b4894618ef069ece2c6b6b5e8a6b2
8463 F20110331_AACVLB santos_s_Page_068thm.jpg
b6c25beb34f8bb7f14d9172cfcbc38a4
418a83cdf963a81e947ae4d601d4c7192fbbf611
36161 F20110331_AACVKN santos_s_Page_112.QC.jpg
ee69aa96e81151fdce6d33e776dd2a7b
5db36e7cfb1a286d7c6c798cdf8c72f8d4360ab3
4956 F20110331_AACVLC santos_s_Page_132thm.jpg
097f337ed7250184b3b1d069c85b250b
7b0bb4c2d04579cb160350c12844eb8813a1ddeb
8592 F20110331_AACVKO santos_s_Page_027thm.jpg
d1017a6febb7cdf6fa4cb44c652e2558
6a0e795319e823349cc4f6eebea2a86c16c3cb60
8859 F20110331_AACVLD santos_s_Page_136thm.jpg
2bc11e5a028dcae237fdaabc94474772
869bee13a5ae202ecc448268f19a9b317c33658f
17799 F20110331_AACVKP santos_s_Page_098.QC.jpg
03aed3129cbb853ce97e6106d0cb9a08
20691894c9918fac2b0686ff7966553b7ee724f5
12967 F20110331_AACVLE santos_s_Page_057.QC.jpg
6d2829387d1f3f9adcd976e00259e1df
2e8ca5a67fc5ba3f62f25651e4dea5cafe256ed1
37789 F20110331_AACVKQ santos_s_Page_022.QC.jpg
9a12a42fe5a042044e5e86c3afc008b3
420a8fc810ca9577d8551d27fb7157488613bf09
28715 F20110331_AACVLF santos_s_Page_039.QC.jpg
c667d044225c000e5d299376d5a5c75f
eb7517fc0760aaaea084a5daa67d98116b32035f
15262 F20110331_AACVKR santos_s_Page_123.QC.jpg
f3e3e9216fcb00c6bf1840c9106f7e0e
b437f6898efd675fedc83b72d4e298719173bfde
12585 F20110331_AACVLG santos_s_Page_030.QC.jpg
12c0685282895d002b3b29875df4fdea
2a72eb3985f6fa02d51d0be51e4249c52f9d6d04
1908 F20110331_AACVKS santos_s_Page_055thm.jpg
9c5dcc29980ac60606036b6e011f8ec9
ddfba68a710a7ca8b13855510ea10d82dcb833d3
34661 F20110331_AACVLH santos_s_Page_048.QC.jpg
e4868cbb803acaeccf924425edf07f11
c00ff5c001e0793f84bd8e9484b7cdf21fd4695c
8668 F20110331_AACVKT santos_s_Page_120thm.jpg
dd3729ff09357c777bf784a9c3a12483
e0f474c6fec445ca339c0598f747a0153cd47491
8766 F20110331_AACVLI santos_s_Page_111thm.jpg
e5eb85466f9b6bd02f73b65108850cac
6b2d6251ba8719ac9138b487e4dfc720db76bc80
18015 F20110331_AACVKU santos_s_Page_128.QC.jpg
f3407669d44df64841c58ad9aee37288
9289d1c531095e464d22b62fb3be9cccbb75155d
16647 F20110331_AACVLJ santos_s_Page_070.QC.jpg
78753d28d2bac87dc5fcf82f55a9a282
d28a5f519ed1019a2219ff54dd3bbf2add1941d6
9162 F20110331_AACVKV santos_s_Page_032thm.jpg
4b1eb10e63fde0ef3fb35a4897aad860
02aed3737f1f30457a1f157d91b428cd5d0e6126
34581 F20110331_AACVLK santos_s_Page_117.QC.jpg
63c5d2889176e2022eb8e419f32976e0
2d05ab0e6f60bd64e44e661559335f9717b8f88c
11666 F20110331_AACVKW santos_s_Page_077.QC.jpg
1f9be8bc73bde2b428cfb3e2965ffa9d
e7a6ecd126e3db52cbed7c338ddfb0a8687ce282
8720 F20110331_AACVLL santos_s_Page_137thm.jpg
208ee163c0e96c7e8c4a4546b939d6c2
1040c3f8486327e2044b9aea1a96fcc6fb1ede11
31249 F20110331_AACVKX santos_s_Page_135.QC.jpg
756675007f34988660a9c7ed4afbcea5
30ea73b419105c536fdc100d2070557c3c9a618c
37007 F20110331_AACVMA santos_s_Page_076.QC.jpg
b9b2ab07ae6044a38dbbfd0250748c65
41f4fc8a6d32bc331f7aefee73df38f6c86263c7
8882 F20110331_AACVLM santos_s_Page_138thm.jpg
6963364ba50d328d75f0f98e97e16e50
3042efceb9921bd0a0d2f8a5300e390cb9863638
8854 F20110331_AACVKY santos_s_Page_061thm.jpg
afb884a268c7c9d975a3b42bdf4092e6
d96fc77d0c7d7753860189436da19cc2fc60ade0
36773 F20110331_AACVMB santos_s_Page_115.QC.jpg
c06390617da12a770477ccee040a687d
f1f69ad3a376c0cb5617994078523116577c9d6e
35487 F20110331_AACVLN santos_s_Page_111.QC.jpg
a5db78fcdf0d1cb5544c258b2c7601dd
da9d10c2aade7f5601e4eb4c54ca133dd0f12054
9389 F20110331_AACVKZ santos_s_Page_043thm.jpg
0326e9e86addacede20b871837e790f7
f1de2116bb54c71aa1e2aec53c0d0dcea50cd236
5080 F20110331_AACVMC santos_s_Page_093thm.jpg
0f9ea5cd6045c9f79a3bb4768e9b0df7
e73bb810ddda8b088b81870fcef3f8c4b86951fe
9583 F20110331_AACVLO santos_s_Page_124.QC.jpg
ca11b959a027da06a6f86d6351db368e
e9da2432672f30b6bd48a81b1d74d4f3113fe033
8244 F20110331_AACVMD santos_s_Page_067thm.jpg
94bf8997f2870d3565e27c7abe63e7d1
51c892b17491a3757b8c030d2e5ca5bb7d99cf1c
36885 F20110331_AACVLP santos_s_Page_114.QC.jpg
0fece1b2fe17858a4a0ecd2347ee0109
8b60985905553a85d61a608622014e2d153a7232
36458 F20110331_AACVME santos_s_Page_020.QC.jpg
dd3a2d5eb3f8a318c4cd212b1579f44a
38278b6c8928f33c36ad6e62605c4abb635a06d7
8801 F20110331_AACVLQ santos_s_Page_054thm.jpg
93994f02f61a85ef229efe42cbddfeeb
67df1d7ed582f893cbf747054725ee3cefb7f32c
2082 F20110331_AACUJC santos_s_Page_056.txt
e9dad02ab1807830c996898ee4e6ae78
ac4a9d1caf544a82544f7d390cda414f6a5653e9
8899 F20110331_AACVMF santos_s_Page_023thm.jpg
ad81a4dc98776c79d3a93f5e21d67642
0e7ea0f4108ad30c4c0367bce337ac35108e1dd7
9017 F20110331_AACVLR santos_s_Page_089thm.jpg
635b87eb9288ad40abebad5457e37768
15cf2b3555d6d68d3066f6a98fbc52697847c743
3552 F20110331_AACUJD santos_s_Page_124thm.jpg
52d254e0deec76fb938aa44fb6c17572
1327c6ee171221fe54914e6647a874fefa1089cc
9014 F20110331_AACVMG santos_s_Page_080thm.jpg
c25bb6236f0edd658a047ebe63eaac6f
e4761705aa7132d190e9a5725e2990e4837a13e7
8333 F20110331_AACVLS santos_s_Page_036thm.jpg
193caf57d17f677c9a697c0868625f47
cb32d36a33bbdfa4f71947fe2a256c97294be60c
25265604 F20110331_AACUJE santos_s_Page_058.tif
eb39d4040138257b49aeceb858bbaef2
90475e2c4875cc3cd76a554345e38a1cd91b0278
2041 F20110331_AACVMH santos_s_Page_001thm.jpg
ac939de8b0c3849862d2a49ac5efc240
7e158e0ca31c254a75b9cace2525de8a393c5e9c
15597 F20110331_AACVLT santos_s_Page_094.QC.jpg
d99a8da4964167197c41990eb21ea463
115c8b8bf3a2a7045ef96d94e5d49837795e5a66
164607 F20110331_AACUJF UFE0021808_00001.mets FULL
399016a2bf693a77fc9b245db21ed211
f922a1074fb337e5c8428c953afa7b12cb59c3a2
35681 F20110331_AACVMI santos_s_Page_027.QC.jpg
52426da9634b8dc9f80c8ff4d726a40c
63f0c996f90724d0866cd48b79f53f46c568cc43
3709 F20110331_AACVLU santos_s_Page_078thm.jpg
ffbce1223ac0c325e936f7f6749314d0
5e91e542aea135342d3127e7194865dc5f8e044d
9032 F20110331_AACVMJ santos_s_Page_076thm.jpg
21709f9acab364da942062c19f417c1f
6497d95d48e0b186b359f42b3d9f9b01f2861bf4
35256 F20110331_AACVLV santos_s_Page_040.QC.jpg
862b4f617c353451a2d9f16cc5d065ba
19633ac1580656effd16f13e0461c94b54a8bfb0
16344 F20110331_AACVMK santos_s_Page_133.QC.jpg
d354a43579ca192a90467eaeab1b1a36
ccef18e72730858e9ad83aba3ac9df726fbf9d0f
38718 F20110331_AACVLW santos_s_Page_066.QC.jpg
a3d216de55529c0721467897cf554671
0691dd94c1a9c5e491cd6835c817b88a80ec0e5c
25271604 F20110331_AACUJI santos_s_Page_001.tif
8f9f5c4a7f25ad72f88a2969c2437de4
7357d4a82480d6f63d65e6c5244a5ba9a4210116
8925 F20110331_AACVML santos_s_Page_091thm.jpg
17b7ddcf2c97b4e69e497a52c4a7bc7e
4c6da644e4d3d37fd6a715cb2588ac31634458c4
9046 F20110331_AACVLX santos_s_Page_140.QC.jpg
a7521758cac6026da5ca653f0dbb0c19
11ba4cb1ec232b192f5c550276894b3a6418bd0f
F20110331_AACUJJ santos_s_Page_002.tif
6ef470e0fc49c26cab16a6f8cb1599b9
b9e0df045b39ef6ff931a5dbf277af1bb569b782
35124 F20110331_AACVMM santos_s_Page_018.QC.jpg
b1a3d47e5ac726638c649b67d037c9ab
616ebe64ce93dff635bc04351ff192ee2c174f83
37026 F20110331_AACVLY santos_s_Page_059.QC.jpg
973dab60cffa59a0ec160ceb134d798b
ae99b27c01af495d8d014625a9768ff9acb8dad7
16727 F20110331_AACVNA santos_s_Page_127.QC.jpg
baa27f61d37a5a4c13b4a30790d9de49
cb0fbdffff910479d3316d622becdbc3e97c01ed
F20110331_AACUJK santos_s_Page_003.tif
0a2efc1197092aa58993b2ffb9b2a2e3
41f8d3ab4dd6c6e53f544f3a4ac13ca9bdd4fbab
9122 F20110331_AACVLZ santos_s_Page_053thm.jpg
5c077eb1154df34e67f8f52215485cc0
fa4f4ba1ab7f3eceb8221d98019e1db15ceb9ae6
8505 F20110331_AACVNB santos_s_Page_049thm.jpg
dd619e7cfa3d265df0e3976f9794538e
3cfcffd94a779508e77caa86eb92452d2d86fd6b
F20110331_AACUJL santos_s_Page_004.tif
68fb6774e4235981f37798bfb0882641
4ac42fa8341baab029a403e71e7c1e5a54aae0c8
F20110331_AACVMN santos_s_Page_112thm.jpg
e4778ce34fe5f89300051580a16e068d
76bb85ff9c675a48944426224fa30cb61a5535d3
F20110331_AACUKA santos_s_Page_019.tif
4f0fd25815aede7cde4a08b4958898d9
1bd23f15beeefbb0db1411e7cd5f61721b1896d7
35149 F20110331_AACVNC santos_s_Page_016.QC.jpg
3f2a9baa41c7376e6614a6b809ad549a
d22e8ccaecd600730dbe50b6940c33c26c64fa03
F20110331_AACUJM santos_s_Page_005.tif
68ee879f931dd59f53356378998cf7da
3cb911abecb6f208950960111499e0629518b344
8017 F20110331_AACVMO santos_s_Page_008thm.jpg
4193cdb161a732a4e82286d97746a2ec
6163ddfbb4dc4b26063a0dbc5085de52d942a16b
F20110331_AACUKB santos_s_Page_020.tif
1d7f341cf99b462425c31831fe03beae
25c8414523d236f0c904770e5b6fef2287ba531d
32656 F20110331_AACVND santos_s_Page_056.QC.jpg
512b26737c391d97fc561ae7884ab15b
87ce0140e86e186648944d6d50dd0a55d7a7bc5d
F20110331_AACUJN santos_s_Page_006.tif
2fb108e7f500e554b72b59148e35dee2
783db9c711d7586a4a5ab69635d1a6fd207b8a82
33787 F20110331_AACVMP santos_s_Page_138.QC.jpg
0cd33ca3c661b1fb06265ce90daea175
f34322acd2d02cd69819258656742772e3e61619
F20110331_AACUKC santos_s_Page_021.tif
6e3edc3e44970fab87e0410cde3a9805
748068b443cb23d19e64305e6917e51c7320f3c1
8849 F20110331_AACVNE santos_s_Page_011thm.jpg
07534637aaca1ad2bc1f3815bd10d2e7
f4ea06d2c173df57c5a81b4ce8956a8ed6367d89
F20110331_AACUJO santos_s_Page_007.tif
22198cf6c754bb37f5bed83f352186e6
39c2ecf44a9e0222a4527d9ef5109554b72518c9
33723 F20110331_AACVMQ santos_s_Page_107.QC.jpg
c79ec479a1c2ea3fe8dee67cf18c479c
5707d00d0ea475a6a7d8bcb6a18037624cce2dc3
F20110331_AACUKD santos_s_Page_022.tif
59eb598540c8538176978a7557cc2f0d
e98ead024033f461a5e78a8e6ecea2977d17f92f
5238 F20110331_AACVNF santos_s_Page_129thm.jpg
c1e84481bb4289cbe1e7661001df2591
2ce381a8d9b0874f037355f3a18351ae16acd071
F20110331_AACUJP santos_s_Page_008.tif
52141c10dc79c4884699acb4f5323a68
74f9792d421c576d796783c1756858c2c4e5b7fc
F20110331_AACVMR santos_s_Page_016thm.jpg
dc8ee70e3d071f134f06706aed790b12
4484b62be251b4522bdca567f2fd7289000ac626
F20110331_AACUKE santos_s_Page_023.tif
57d06c97ac8f574c3e26d71eda776452
823b9541fa157d4b20b1210fc2aa01a1a0f45021
25167 F20110331_AACVNG santos_s_Page_038.QC.jpg
dba63743b7cdb8722a19033d25a747c1
c0d9f8b17480c82c31eed5582ab1d8743a0f70ea
F20110331_AACUJQ santos_s_Page_009.tif
4fcf8c346b04f4b1877dec897d668839
665f78c7b6c5de07ca56c396fb554e40c6cc4610
9228 F20110331_AACVMS santos_s_Page_069thm.jpg
2ca5e1fe523a840ba5c63c91a6aeefeb
46abb5b485a3afe7525c5f3536419fa144fcf3df
F20110331_AACUKF santos_s_Page_024.tif
d8d74d189b59e0d868547e6d876b31d9
fe26b26fbfa7b4f2d303205b5a7236a1a854484a
8359 F20110331_AACVNH santos_s_Page_010thm.jpg
ead0573d617653670cb868ce47379105
73a647b6e3b60c40b31e0bb651e9c258089baed4
F20110331_AACUJR santos_s_Page_010.tif
5d759188922e023f9f08a72ce0dd9fe1
45d5c4c1dcf14953b49631a709d69f48d6419e6d
36546 F20110331_AACVMT santos_s_Page_050.QC.jpg
82ae139a28064974d584d819257b766b
bbc76aa7d8f051a251a5e3d1575a40b0b31eb6b2
8408 F20110331_AACVNI santos_s_Page_058.QC.jpg
caa072ebe108595a70ab306839a7491c
88975b81362173431938185e19ee2927922016c5
F20110331_AACUKG santos_s_Page_025.tif
38952af154ffd84692da11a91dc69963
ade21b51aca866252e0615233e9d5334c144cc16
F20110331_AACUJS santos_s_Page_011.tif
cc7a02ee920f661e8af96070bcc7078a
3d69f6d79c5fb72076053ed9aea30f04d5f071ae
37035 F20110331_AACVMU santos_s_Page_075.QC.jpg
2a3b5446ffeb9fdb89aa1b295a13d64a
345f24b3369e1e6b22078718935412e1908eba4f
31805 F20110331_AACVNJ santos_s_Page_067.QC.jpg
dbf37e4712430a61cd0150b6d26a5991
dbebf33d3095e2c972df1a7d17b1c9ee5142ccab
F20110331_AACUKH santos_s_Page_026.tif
b912c176e88d7da8a4d1b28de59937b5
723de5a448d9f08e759c73db6fe3ba643bcffaf3
F20110331_AACUJT santos_s_Page_012.tif
b40f90128732e1dca17943cfd8b57963
2c27042355a179b40ee12a43dda158c17ea11354
9309 F20110331_AACVMV santos_s_Page_086thm.jpg
e1b41500ed6b5b45d35830acefb7ae00
a2283fbf29f2cfa0172d619c97ac989ff6b9b920
14856 F20110331_AACVNK santos_s_Page_103.QC.jpg
c7d22bb15fd41f9bd6f1cd775a782389
4341a9b2ba69da9f864cf010b036a6385211a8db
F20110331_AACUKI santos_s_Page_027.tif
b259b278f2f37c8b62c5f600b470a719
ea4241d1b7680480c41a0fb558f48ca47682c760
F20110331_AACUJU santos_s_Page_013.tif
2a7f3a5285688fbc6d9ce4d752691edd
277f8dd91c8f3c1317120cc55f947742a96a2370
8525 F20110331_AACVMW santos_s_Page_117thm.jpg
643d9ceeb6774a42811597cfe4dddbd7
436603a6c75cf2fb1e699b525bbe0d1be99b567e
11907 F20110331_AACVOA santos_s_Page_082.QC.jpg
26f54243c3ba8b56e06b8ce2b30758f2
c1f123c2c0f2277fa67dd09f4af2b248646db6ac
35121 F20110331_AACVNL santos_s_Page_105.QC.jpg
a4c2eb279ef40d055badcf658b18fe34
e9f1f60a84f3c8fe02858cafb984908e98f5fb02
F20110331_AACUKJ santos_s_Page_028.tif
54d7d1fdd5143072856b43a85afe610c
cdabed2a40af56c7f78c6f1e425dd68c90d1c61d
F20110331_AACUJV santos_s_Page_014.tif
277995fda805dd724470cc71f9ffeb63
516845556e394ad1d8f9606b02cfcc4a1eb40595
32235 F20110331_AACVMX santos_s_Page_025.QC.jpg
709c3d71c1a7850460ab9f0607bab137
edf4777711259ddb5a957c68cae81fb6588914f2
5485 F20110331_AACVNM santos_s_Page_133thm.jpg
9a125602ab10f153eea8e140aacd634b
1351a473d2f6df03cc254d4d66d0972d2f6c8d87
F20110331_AACUKK santos_s_Page_029.tif
d099e8fce5ac35879908eebc80f62a81
30cc70b23006925e87a981cfe17011a83763ec58
F20110331_AACUJW santos_s_Page_015.tif
d26123a4774b14f912f1d9af5345f04e
6274bc76ee11d45b2838335e8d36b24ce0c1b14d
35662 F20110331_AACVMY santos_s_Page_116.QC.jpg
19b1ef4050dac2c7ec7d9bb50353c2a3
ccdd4b854f21f1030976e6791353d47e47fd0370
11696 F20110331_AACVOB santos_s_Page_122.QC.jpg
02561df0eaf4bb6efb7ddcb29124e4e6
19e8f33f66ff6fd6c2e2ff152f84958c8bf1033f
32545 F20110331_AACVNN santos_s_Page_044.QC.jpg
50280ea06bd1b40b6d882a52da1761e4
a996e6e532b29845b72b0f41fc298017ae9dc9a0
F20110331_AACUKL santos_s_Page_030.tif
6ddba358714b6e10c6f9f865a24b16cb
5859f18b9bea640b7268248fd6c97819512fec4f
F20110331_AACUJX santos_s_Page_016.tif
1b93b24903ab8fb10849ba46179cf583
10dbf6766f77eb7ecac8a25ac075936974b0ff0c
4899 F20110331_AACVMZ santos_s_Page_098thm.jpg
fac08ab8e1d95337eefd21bfc9ad4337
ee57f6656f9ee9c942b126d8914f40bf6d859b97
8916 F20110331_AACVOC santos_s_Page_115thm.jpg
77b3b86d035b9dcf3882018d2fabf2fc
9b4c2397d941d22136cc03f0c2ae03a69e2b7793
9187 F20110331_AACVNO santos_s_Page_059thm.jpg
7b7dbee47c263c63399bc176ef14e07d
14e7a578878d67532c65cf5889720276c790b025
F20110331_AACULA santos_s_Page_045.tif
2dcc442735e8c1d7232fca1ca13a2610
dc66ad65d84a76f39e21c12410edb287529b6c58
F20110331_AACUKM santos_s_Page_031.tif
4834e40f19460c77c8bd7f9b6215fec5
8b9f4c0252bd2a31937da9ffc42562a6fa312f75
F20110331_AACUJY santos_s_Page_017.tif
d9dc250306a639479a11bc1857916a7a
7db0a5265f6606f525fcaae63c1a27c16434af6b
4714 F20110331_AACVOD santos_s_Page_070thm.jpg
37d042bbcffedca68c26ec16052de23e
42a241b6ca115a10665f45e986fd16c00bcf5df3
37009 F20110331_AACVNP santos_s_Page_089.QC.jpg
32385b3f290d5fcc4dfb292821dba626
2e4cdb2488496d3a98d40e011c6de10c54c0eb2b
F20110331_AACULB santos_s_Page_046.tif
34705f5c27fccab0e307a4335fb302f1
919743a3e8b3c693e138ebf5847d0095f6e551bf
F20110331_AACUKN santos_s_Page_032.tif
441c398bb7c99ff4cd7d61f6a16f3f65
c8100a956fd3b50df4e1219b9f08c16e7b995c08
F20110331_AACUJZ santos_s_Page_018.tif
b2e3cbef2537192f8b83cc1bfc568b66
b1a9249313619acd497ec9fe628390f0c1cb2cc4
11222 F20110331_AACVOE santos_s_Page_004.QC.jpg
d125efda61481645532d19e339570ee0
2f1e6e286422d57f07dc09db415ac09a533524e1
3895 F20110331_AACVNQ santos_s_Page_126thm.jpg
a5b6ea98ed5ba9c2b56c19fdd3c6da3a
2c6d7fde34700b3da716e8cb4486ac1ae035f312
F20110331_AACULC santos_s_Page_047.tif
0306d5019a0776d8967a848b673e8f91
fab1d4e7af91f19fd81ce7908d9ab766f403a53b
F20110331_AACUKO santos_s_Page_033.tif
cf00223f797745d22ee8a425d3e414f3
023fb3aae7117286a950d287fddc28629c3b9acf
4366 F20110331_AACVOF santos_s_Page_103thm.jpg
54652b62c4654f47c240a4c49f47445c
1003ef132e1998c3950222096773d2b74b2c8d4f
7716 F20110331_AACVNR santos_s_Page_100thm.jpg
268a98804c2edf6dbe6749c4bab9a224
98cab7a432245a67b387dcea0785e71c6bb06a19
F20110331_AACULD santos_s_Page_048.tif
4a8fde384e71e2941294ae2f9a513ec7
77d76ca86b2fab57c8f8c2caa89b1672eba93bdb
F20110331_AACUKP santos_s_Page_034.tif
7d45ec681671f783de295d0a382ce664
f2ea40a67b921c0caade263fc2cd6564cfabdab2
34035 F20110331_AACVOG santos_s_Page_041.QC.jpg
9dd0b44ebce95749e376344ecde245aa
28c431de91585b95d1df9ebe38197c34c6bad94a
8950 F20110331_AACVNS santos_s_Page_045thm.jpg
d4b70fa47123769dca626544cb6b60fd
14fbdcb6e5bb038e1c5888cd2b84a7236eda6f90
F20110331_AACULE santos_s_Page_049.tif
48bf556255def8a3cf80fa86a3fd21e7
3160a4ee85a2f56f6828b92299d43cfe802d9125
F20110331_AACUKQ santos_s_Page_035.tif
b9fc87808cea6f96c8573a1f40612e13
c16686288f9bda8a5563d0b41ef4a4a273675e98
37246 F20110331_AACVOH santos_s_Page_090.QC.jpg
c10999a2ab466fe2dbbc1cc41f3a4bb9
97ab2320135294270c9b34ebc04501033e888452
19878 F20110331_AACVNT santos_s_Page_131.QC.jpg
4cfac43f4c30c7d1f254df191d53db4d
95f873c9172c01540023415a434896d7b23e2933
F20110331_AACULF santos_s_Page_050.tif
39593f810e9d72fd282e1410b40a51a5
3f82104e63bc8f4df7c3c55d9add46e0d5e7360b
F20110331_AACUKR santos_s_Page_036.tif
50c3051c6d4b31a3dba769691e663a38
bdbe7e5e451b43a8f4a6732c6b807f8926373639
9096 F20110331_AACVOI santos_s_Page_021thm.jpg
e4d82bc63cc0d61f27669cbf76af9b1e
8b92c20499fc062ba1e8bc2ab1bc9df2089714e8
39764 F20110331_AACVNU santos_s_Page_086.QC.jpg
111e4f5bd508ad00a8638157119f2607
1237a7a5d1be4a2832126d52c98ee2064fa3470b
F20110331_AACULG santos_s_Page_051.tif
be50b6614a8f95e1e069e9de83bc8fe7
2e6e001462fb6d6642b0d459fb6bda1c29be4db0
F20110331_AACUKS santos_s_Page_037.tif
0706262cc0f18fbeb883089837de5112
81767b5a3e4e990c4135dfa9b89591d5bc8f18df
9128 F20110331_AACVOJ santos_s_Page_037thm.jpg
f56f84061560e4624c2e8ce2ae3c8ace
f3811d64e61c497f9ff62520498a2708f28c318a
12986 F20110331_AACVNV santos_s_Page_087.QC.jpg
9e8d62f6559b7644690877bc4fa24c18
032c0f7398687033285bb2578a3cb18a80464e4d
F20110331_AACULH santos_s_Page_052.tif
bee8dde58b95616665f6ecc209cd78e1
6ad839672d2508d7726d843d90772bcd695c3dc4
F20110331_AACUKT santos_s_Page_038.tif
86f66d3b43cd6a461e8acc626f8bc166
d1751477bfabc401dbfe04da84506d350e735c08
6236 F20110331_AACVOK santos_s_Page_007thm.jpg
ab846b9d1b94fc7f63beaeb05dc4f74b
00ce14d9d941dbb5cc34df6ee5aa71d83b087c9f
9039 F20110331_AACVNW santos_s_Page_060thm.jpg
78749621364f79d1e3fc8ac0404beffc
ac9b750d64fc3804aabd72e9c37995c2a9e4bcdd
F20110331_AACULI santos_s_Page_053.tif
35c5433c22e1511276e6baef0a221ac5
1cc72d9cb37e220e37a849fd3d852ea689e27ca5
F20110331_AACUKU santos_s_Page_039.tif
80351f97304aa7b310ba0e87b1556ce4
4ce86fb664a36e5681fbb04b74cc76743020c615
38849 F20110331_AACVPA santos_s_Page_092.QC.jpg
7cc3489aaa821358cab877ac312e2285
bbc1d17646f410e3f6aa5099989f730ed2dd0a16
32878 F20110331_AACVOL santos_s_Page_010.QC.jpg
6ac6d721bad5b739f818ce02c8594a9b
66b09183db7a5f0809f96301d7a0880581769742
36127 F20110331_AACVNX santos_s_Page_052.QC.jpg
05f0d44fb6d8e70df14ab472a38939f0
34a9251c292610f888766bcc479b91875f5d30f1
F20110331_AACULJ santos_s_Page_054.tif
47310a7ec97cfc8a13e7b116927e26a4
2d85d42308b58fcad3bc017f97840d47b2ea136a
F20110331_AACUKV santos_s_Page_040.tif
bfda0aea66609f6a8f0cdce67d5cde88
c63475db1650336150ea85440ac59663940fe380
8972 F20110331_AACVPB santos_s_Page_116thm.jpg
96c48ff904e930bb35a41189e8b8b044
9529702a762e4a6692de3b5abf8f81b2673b6233
8332 F20110331_AACVOM santos_s_Page_135thm.jpg
9a739e933f06a290aeb65ab87e38e025
bc88e502ee609752e02aa8ea9ca1f8e479da589b
33566 F20110331_AACVNY santos_s_Page_046.QC.jpg
5dc5f56e1dc3d6049283f28668e7a7f4
92e4280045b04775ff27068a02eceb89b544adbe
F20110331_AACULK santos_s_Page_055.tif
58fc06d1765780f50694bf7f957956a4
101210fe2d1428bfcfa346a2cee20f2e5ff27b79
F20110331_AACUKW santos_s_Page_041.tif
8fd1bf734bd7fcc9ed4eb2d4b3df3825
209d7f9155404771295f7d1fce34255b2a9eb1ea
15773 F20110331_AACVON santos_s_Page_073.QC.jpg
6759bee50fe9deb679ad1998ca6f9a8a
dcb9b4358b96eece63e057e63dbd1dc8340ca7f0
8920 F20110331_AACVNZ santos_s_Page_031thm.jpg
6b8c6f77b8254b9a60ebc5f9b1a8e5b6
6e0bf0783fd7e4e4c8f8fd445a80b66431d9e49f
F20110331_AACULL santos_s_Page_056.tif
86e57e52d779f160c8c779571fea6aee
c1fb24d789c295af93321a4be8ce464049c75fd0
F20110331_AACUKX santos_s_Page_042.tif
3ec49bfd37d19c9578b4a1b25fbb59a8
70ce6edd4783c1b22923ab60238289a8a478b90f
5880 F20110331_AACVPC santos_s_Page_009.QC.jpg
d061dbe57cddd3097f37adc80306cbe3
f26bb9ee6c4d8cba231fe0e4d940be7cbf5399e3
33911 F20110331_AACVOO santos_s_Page_118.QC.jpg
cd00dc8965dc340b4c54fae2fea80eb4
de7745e5723ca70378bfc9cc87622b0d8c0b78f9
F20110331_AACULM santos_s_Page_057.tif
180e8bad6777ff7c0b0f7c121b277e70
fe76c5172e7bfa18ab4aed8a4f85b2151c40f096
F20110331_AACUKY santos_s_Page_043.tif
3d491851aebd98af794fe8e34aea518e
f9fd9968a0e7b435f9d31bc5fe7d7a2aaf00ca64
F20110331_AACUMA santos_s_Page_072.tif
c4ce5708e9c35723a898aec71c00cd74
2d94ec4c8d1b1c7e2a3ad088a0c8ffa1e08410b1
8966 F20110331_AACVPD santos_s_Page_096thm.jpg
b4a42b15dc58be6bf7b64aee7dd61f4a
ec5db9df60642973cd1575ce877a74d3e66976bb
37382 F20110331_AACVOP santos_s_Page_051.QC.jpg
5ad6724b05afddbd8205c0e00778da4a
1b41f659a8b0e368b689ed169e2e7a9fa2e57bbc
F20110331_AACULN santos_s_Page_059.tif
557a05fafa2ae4195cb34e95e266c402
073a7d8236e95a639996f4ead7558a0b35bfff8f
F20110331_AACUKZ santos_s_Page_044.tif
0555156cd3462011d538f605a7ca2f26
ae300664a2823d62bd143d216c19cb74fc756401
F20110331_AACUMB santos_s_Page_073.tif
20fc19299aa29d4d624ef15f3a338441
e1c70506b41fa934f38805aa467dd47e327b8268
5565 F20110331_AACVPE santos_s_Page_130thm.jpg
88b8bf5246d6167ca333b70f02f3eb1b
cfce01d6880c2dae0ff88e9c222af5f9857258cc
2491 F20110331_AACVOQ santos_s_Page_139thm.jpg
90b4451f6416afc148bce6a993acd294
63d017f53bcc8681a89e205b24b388fd1a18adf3
F20110331_AACULO santos_s_Page_060.tif
a224ba2bde59648492fbe87ec4f63f40
f3077eb576e54a8597062d6cd752a8b9291933ae
F20110331_AACUMC santos_s_Page_074.tif
ae470059aba53571e5c5408d0f881e61
28753ac5042245d0b7a0e4bf8c0a1c5a7f217e57
31371 F20110331_AACVPF santos_s_Page_008.QC.jpg
8931e26e92122eb9b08d08d6b66dbf6d
ee9085edb0c4cd1f1fea5526b56a166463334d54
8383 F20110331_AACVOR santos_s_Page_046thm.jpg
546fde508a0dd873029bafe50ff4db8a
69b042dc7ebcda31c9a4352da5656db541a67073
F20110331_AACULP santos_s_Page_061.tif
571000eb9df9aac5cf1b46ce465f1d11
567eaa688dfc7d653d62a3a2cb6c695536a5b165
F20110331_AACUMD santos_s_Page_075.tif
b4c6e916912743bc639c5bdfb18aa626
99db5a5bfae2693de8510d11863bf90453e1616e
35147 F20110331_AACVPG santos_s_Page_042.QC.jpg
eaa910726da85f13d03c41f0de6c261d
9c46e20b6c5e6e241977998d9f0fd791985a1206
8942 F20110331_AACVOS santos_s_Page_075thm.jpg
4f90303cc3f58625583c13964e133a18
9b44a2eed5043b1e94bacfc9c3b7c66d2ca23c46
F20110331_AACULQ santos_s_Page_062.tif
f604d2634277be632f648c671c002a67
09d8e42215cda272f4557436ed235aac8cc73463
F20110331_AACUME santos_s_Page_076.tif
21743f9c58b3dd9be1739a90edd05046
51a9988404e681939c24d08269544122659bce21
4920 F20110331_AACVPH santos_s_Page_127thm.jpg
817b01ec72aaf319e48012f4f6e1a1e8
fd198c174fc56f85ab464ac46c65772284b2f0be
16755 F20110331_AACVOT santos_s_Page_129.QC.jpg
68ee46c6c54d581a2349f1378b87da60
5ef5e9c46bbf964da1608bca8f122b588274d4b4
F20110331_AACULR santos_s_Page_063.tif
2f6b2d43c31a27935f94b2dc7df8c11a
1232d3938cbdf3ca004f2458bd4748f020b72153
F20110331_AACUMF santos_s_Page_077.tif
96bb32d1bbd92a8168daf089bdf24a0e
513db0a39cd318ebf4d2f05cb79b3d8d6090a4dd
9044 F20110331_AACVPI santos_s_Page_121thm.jpg
1a53b5c1a4a6095a1c9980050504fc47
b5716a22481c506ffc628a0ce16abc6b26461c2c
36650 F20110331_AACVOU santos_s_Page_011.QC.jpg
db2d0d50b012025793fd02b3578b3f73
16e4e2c0e438643af59123f31c67f72ae8e096d9
F20110331_AACULS santos_s_Page_064.tif
d08b35a18f33736bf163b9651d982ce3
e11c99389852c55ac86c03ed878c8c60e96ab601
F20110331_AACUMG santos_s_Page_078.tif
7736457d22d05a39c8e1a7123d8cc841
d9afa67a0461a53e8ae07363644657c1be3fac6a
35754 F20110331_AACVPJ santos_s_Page_023.QC.jpg
e3537a052440119a6b7da3bd55b11219
04a753aef72ab1b25ce955b6ec5a0e471f3838eb
8323 F20110331_AACVOV santos_s_Page_044thm.jpg
ebcb374e573ed63e4e36dfbe0ee3e74a
07fdf001afc889ac32760b5608e3b50eb0fed23a
F20110331_AACULT santos_s_Page_065.tif
0f4bedc21f4c4531623075f43c2f5ffd
f905a7e686b598c8b3421c4ca04de20ee00d644a
F20110331_AACUMH santos_s_Page_079.tif
1c6ad2649e699d64ad7ce0ab04164e8e
eab7532ae3ddaca938c2090f3f73c8879f4f4f72
8753 F20110331_AACVPK santos_s_Page_064thm.jpg
4cb717c0403052cb792cbcecf8d6de4c
1df3768e8c326007cfe779a8d2e2c245c19306d9
9250 F20110331_AACVOW santos_s_Page_050thm.jpg
84563310f57991578eb9bc78bc8084f3
68374bf02bfbbc3d426cc3c787cf7e47d4e94b80
F20110331_AACULU santos_s_Page_066.tif
24a0f653e1383c9acc70810171b4438b
eab5dbda0b258a2202f60567d2ebdc089b3f712f
F20110331_AACUMI santos_s_Page_080.tif
a6633c2533e3e87c646e73031b55d404
e12ed5627819fcc4da4e5d8c87d88319e8d29f9d
35874 F20110331_AACVQA santos_s_Page_136.QC.jpg
4f24f82dbcb5aa5a6120d51e3139cc98
a9cb2da261da7c02cf8d58cdb0c81e6a90d5767e
35392 F20110331_AACVPL santos_s_Page_109.QC.jpg
213556da596f5f1497113dce50eb63f2
2b5ce3a68178f2d6aca29387c19a5423e9f35a73
16534 F20110331_AACVOX santos_s_Page_071.QC.jpg
475f39f64afd883dcb6792aff3e0206e
d76bb1f47747ba9cba79b43e1b7f11a042b6c180
F20110331_AACULV santos_s_Page_067.tif
a24476b81008b84c744e39831b501ae7
d1830b456328d5eccb0914ad18b00ac0b6fecbf1
F20110331_AACUMJ santos_s_Page_081.tif
0cf9d860f2e99163729214e0c0c7664b
9977c95704b85fd2d72872bba484d70a18c6aeea
21738 F20110331_AACVQB santos_s_Page_072.QC.jpg
9f254f43c8a6fd4d392609fc551dfbab
7e97982f44987c12acb56401bc1757c0707d4bc3
482 F20110331_AACVPM santos_s_Page_003thm.jpg
b24bd736c9711ba0d1f135aaf9fd71ad
67b97e881e37e69c34d397ee2f963ea503dd466d
4123 F20110331_AACVOY santos_s_Page_083thm.jpg
6749a8bfd3ef974b9e62e3eacb47cef5
0b4a2ad987eb69069344f5a8a5f7ef859b5123ce
F20110331_AACULW santos_s_Page_068.tif
28208e2848e3563f44024c8d7256dc2e
efebe2fbc46ea45cb31c4034ee8edc235f77a06d
F20110331_AACUMK santos_s_Page_082.tif
cc8fb0c717768046ab889ce335fab807
bef2c988af0c4cbbccdb94ae554d710b5fdb9cd0
37880 F20110331_AACVQC santos_s_Page_017.QC.jpg
5c028a5e2089e0df729d2272ed8f4e33
ceebaabff6ff2b4a231ab75c81fd6b7d77d92995
34157 F20110331_AACVPN santos_s_Page_049.QC.jpg
e04b52575e8ea084a33e11cb7bbe6ec3
954af3157af1345b355431cc323db045bd652f88
37725 F20110331_AACVOZ santos_s_Page_035.QC.jpg
0ea50420cfa4d44def6fc001012306ef
810b952bdd8a6e7c1e20f8a17625fddc5bb4d688
F20110331_AACULX santos_s_Page_069.tif
b70233709fd715333a591d99ed6704c7
b33404bf16f87218c649bd7b5ee69d18e36d466f
F20110331_AACUNA santos_s_Page_098.tif
72486a48fdf2c9b99b3a38a55b81986f
6f74658445cbc173167fa0d21ed8f5f71cc4d201
F20110331_AACUML santos_s_Page_083.tif
203621fade595134d856603bd811f9ef
55e150ad4a7692e7055f02addc2d74c2b82fd556
5985 F20110331_AACVPO santos_s_Page_005thm.jpg
07428444e8804e2fbe386da94887a8b4
b90092330fde20a617be76804e2d44f1ca9365da
F20110331_AACULY santos_s_Page_070.tif
31881780bd7b98eb4c95121dd71c503b
91fab33da0eef775ba9d6969bf12fdd8af15fd51
F20110331_AACUMM santos_s_Page_084.tif
fd0689e6650143854617a1b207bb9141
f649912c29dc8e00abd879f96fb733667682e532
10440 F20110331_AACVQD santos_s_Page_088.QC.jpg
c8e5c009e37912aacf12ab1f7e3df54c
78f290f0bc100a06b3c1c541060361228c0291e7
35544 F20110331_AACVPP santos_s_Page_096.QC.jpg
9253b67d6af2b9a975091224f6e48e69
50197950f56ebf13e06bf82dd12d1108350bdebe
F20110331_AACULZ santos_s_Page_071.tif
a5e546f1897eff9bd3f2a6d931633d49
6db45ba1f090b5fa06492ef1e6b7126540b75950
F20110331_AACUNB santos_s_Page_099.tif
efbed5316a79f8f17d99f65747e2f663
ca5a320dd7b1fc204d7fb441f6861819e6486b82
F20110331_AACUMN santos_s_Page_085.tif
606695717383ec1949ee80a54f2bf1c8
5811fa5efcdd7228fa178d786308d7bb5c89ddbe
36967 F20110331_AACVQE santos_s_Page_037.QC.jpg
014d395aa1966c4e0f8a4da4355e4471
b911e615ba06c49b04dfe925d74ebde974ce2c14
35101 F20110331_AACVPQ santos_s_Page_028.QC.jpg
0f85f80373922a1cf39d27ab40f2a06d
1453350f8d3e6c6c4651b376610a5bd5a5f3a90a
F20110331_AACUNC santos_s_Page_100.tif
31b548fc3d32faac6d429edacfb2c216
e65ea317a2e75be26e831d829000fca8970458bd
F20110331_AACUMO santos_s_Page_086.tif
d9e65ea71d88be92573b563f59201ae6
1a2d65b73d764bb1d9998e19e1aa9bf3d96986fe
8838 F20110331_AACVQF santos_s_Page_139.QC.jpg
db93f8f1a08ae3d5e280c518604f9286
09708486824b3b76b699073e9679b9ea9010b71d
2616 F20110331_AACVPR santos_s_Page_104thm.jpg
c9c44954c1330e99681a28029e6034ba
abb6f1ddeb174a83342b67acd541473809562af7
F20110331_AACUND santos_s_Page_101.tif
4b8cf000d8d21e043df3656dc6a2903d
3b78b6d61292bea286a7b8b3a62455b08804a40b
F20110331_AACUMP santos_s_Page_087.tif
442ad1a2971dd3af65e92a86b9e24ecc
6d14b419c9d529d4937a2a629cca69160bf67f1d
9052 F20110331_AACVQG santos_s_Page_092thm.jpg
840fd7a91816f9b95f25278892a8b866
180b7a72caa47cff8753eadb90e612cc910355d0
25590 F20110331_AACVPS santos_s_Page_006.QC.jpg
1b0471b904b919825a647c71f363e8d6
fb7ba278df2aceb394405a232fadb10bd4d2e1ab
F20110331_AACUNE santos_s_Page_102.tif
e5d235bf055e9f5856d6caa06397461b
42dde1ad74d3ffffc9af61a45c496bfc38b32087
F20110331_AACUMQ santos_s_Page_088.tif
f7bf14935ddd646706ec171886aa5a4b
9fbc0801b1b5d4ebd8c11c66be6c1432a9034a2e
F20110331_AACVQH santos_s_Page_097.QC.jpg
ac5b8ea4bfc468d9f317981dc14d760c
1cdb568310780f96fb882eb58cde8275d6606d1e
4507 F20110331_AACVPT santos_s_Page_073thm.jpg
0b673e6466d8da21f690c4b785bb3858
130996d25fce9252920f861da2e4010e2edecacd
F20110331_AACUNF santos_s_Page_103.tif
d53cf8f82719307eca0378d1a205a14d
420e32c57810f6e263770e4c10429e8789641041
F20110331_AACUMR santos_s_Page_089.tif
d9c5caa811a4396bba66d7cdc8274b4a
f2bb347fb867c1e295d23a8bd1227f4fd0fb27f4
4680 F20110331_AACVQI santos_s_Page_071thm.jpg
42b7ca45382ba05af055a68834e962fa
f025e6a6c48a0fe72c56d9ee13b6dbfc0ca360d0
36056 F20110331_AACVPU santos_s_Page_079.QC.jpg
fa4a875902f8af8c3164097722d423c7
9ea2a0732dc5c9ab5e21ae349326bb078239958a
F20110331_AACUNG santos_s_Page_104.tif
bf6e33bb8d9724ff696f0f4426589c0a
7b101177402184c811e66bebb7c2b910fe0822b8
F20110331_AACUMS santos_s_Page_090.tif
dace4cc38816a088c4ac27740d7bf7f2
c9028e5ca506b776442362136ec6ed90449a844a
8632 F20110331_AACVQJ santos_s_Page_041thm.jpg
08d1106be934f08aa3d2d732bf3c558d
7e6f55f83cb8cafbea1c3b3161a9f05909857545
4514 F20110331_AACVPV santos_s_Page_102thm.jpg
1b4e6b4227a18e7656972abb4cb09e2c
927ded88faeb9aede00de3dc967ccd85f021f78c
F20110331_AACUNH santos_s_Page_105.tif
54436532971c9be633f3cd420e8f4888
f54ac2af5556731c1c8b987ec998feee17b83e33
F20110331_AACUMT santos_s_Page_091.tif
44d4bffd741ee11f1fd2e7bb41e09923
405e4e160b4e6117c5f50bbd45ae1b9f9ac7099a
225947 F20110331_AACVQK UFE0021808_00001.xml
f34ed30815502bfec9a70d10f5a767f6
cd6b38bb85f7888457c12fbd5b2ae6c683cdfac5
8895 F20110331_AACVPW santos_s_Page_108thm.jpg
973fbda497fa40c7bb8319478e5d1f0f
19de52b8f2bc4a55ccacc064627e8799ed4ba1bd
F20110331_AACUNI santos_s_Page_106.tif
071c398555c925022dcef79cb13df5cd
c6ce984833dceb08c893469c25fc31aa816d721e
F20110331_AACUMU santos_s_Page_092.tif
4c6af1407d294e443858586f519a4502
080cd226236babaf89bb1013c228ab4be40ebfab
37331 F20110331_AACVRA santos_s_Page_032.QC.jpg
48dc925b6cf7f119ef169a4e63b5dc52
d3ea3d6e00e4faa731b6df616e780325efbdede4
8129 F20110331_AACVQL santos_s_Page_001.QC.jpg
64291f1f4ae83372bc5e18b8cfe49105
576c085f45f6b7c0616625fe0b89f6feb996c153
6391 F20110331_AACVPX santos_s_Page_024thm.jpg
c853e90a383b43cc3d59fe2236b49b56
b27d863f12db04bf470c021e75a1e865cbad3085
F20110331_AACUNJ santos_s_Page_107.tif
42341fd0c839d4c209dffc36ce062f67
1d8691f831830a70f87c28c71f192d8556b203db
F20110331_AACUMV santos_s_Page_093.tif
cf86676b56819890c7b992810dc3d86b
73dd7fffdcbfcfc1be53fea2fd6a26383a46b982
37871 F20110331_AACVRB santos_s_Page_033.QC.jpg
b657d413b31d3ed81a21994e6f67dd98
9093fddd38faa9d80dbc63a96b2d665a10b602aa
1240 F20110331_AACVQM santos_s_Page_002.QC.jpg
32cbd344be8a45772d09e2b55893339d
8c378b1c7d6fb1e688f17d2ac8831cfc3fb0749b
4854 F20110331_AACVPY santos_s_Page_123thm.jpg
d034767a01595adc70a82366670ab512
e5bb3bdab0950e78fdeb3face056947f8e028808
F20110331_AACUNK santos_s_Page_108.tif
ca38e9570c92db4831bdb1941b1cdf47
fcf0a81f392ba3aefcbfea192c063a80df00f1dd
F20110331_AACUMW santos_s_Page_094.tif
bf97c3e7de1b035489acc5087fe0fa3f
55b0d8d50fda141b124eba0c77edf8c4e09a4eda
36626 F20110331_AACVRC santos_s_Page_034.QC.jpg
0eee24281fd5b92ebef4a6c2ef17748b
676d0d4efc3fda3df66c0806ce53858bb905a371
1084 F20110331_AACVQN santos_s_Page_003.QC.jpg
00feac94fc6b6a6d82128583c58dfc3a
aba17455457fb079aff8f0364a18388dc12d225d
8621 F20110331_AACVPZ santos_s_Page_105thm.jpg
ba27f00857115bcce8495035b0ab7423
c8016756821c062e0028bd69091ec813b643eb94
F20110331_AACUNL santos_s_Page_109.tif
b1cf5c8d63116e69b7ba27129a77ccb8
81ebf6a84187e6efa1c20f24e1363f8438bfa928
F20110331_AACUMX santos_s_Page_095.tif
fdb86ad57201e639d80b2aa04414567e
2bd74298fb003cc77a7056167f4700fc50d1da68
F20110331_AACUOA santos_s_Page_124.tif
181f388ef852c422b8ad511b770ae5ac
fab79115ff3f3bd6d3574cc4eadd13f8e4ab85fe
33998 F20110331_AACVRD santos_s_Page_036.QC.jpg
642a8b29d53f04ed0407fd767fa7dc70
401b7cf1d1dcaf4b540c33a07768a4cd03defd74
24937 F20110331_AACVQO santos_s_Page_005.QC.jpg
64a69833b2f8e50984e9f33c2dce0266
fe67fb9277ad3a8f76463121826da8718137687a
F20110331_AACUNM santos_s_Page_110.tif
7df89dea868df0f0d026ed79cd3efdd8
d904ffe9f206f1e76e75969b87d47e5f01ace18f
F20110331_AACUMY santos_s_Page_096.tif
c15b0bb7e5790ff0603894bcca947c27
2bb0cf8715601c7efbd16d9ba685f193f3d642cf
F20110331_AACUOB santos_s_Page_125.tif
a491cf744aa1d7eafae08c2f25c03b29
fe306ae8b6f17269f8f711bb42d5f2514c972bfe
26819 F20110331_AACVQP santos_s_Page_007.QC.jpg
6b021ec5fc8b524b73c0d4cdf1e96272
1cf8c10637530e92c6528f12a90d11ceefd9d019
F20110331_AACUNN santos_s_Page_111.tif
a17d43ca3ee2560cf0d734b92f4245fe
7813648810c62424864bb051038b632220d0fd59
F20110331_AACUMZ santos_s_Page_097.tif
b39ef78befb100772be6e9c8b1c0b3a9
edcd6aea7814a17ca87f4f07c5e1f48d49348561
38899 F20110331_AACVRE santos_s_Page_043.QC.jpg
e64dd8368b2b9226be65ddd30968669f
f85faacbcfc8765bdffde7eb847083028ed067e1
34667 F20110331_AACVQQ santos_s_Page_012.QC.jpg
ba34b2b55de2db8d811d77e89140957b
d65ab231899c3d3a7fdc2e868d94105881e1aa25
F20110331_AACUNO santos_s_Page_112.tif
bac998a223ac06aef2f10cd8fd6b340a
2b7e9dfba6c14074447ab0aa9213d9aab3ec676a
F20110331_AACUOC santos_s_Page_126.tif
095ca6337c0733f925b844bd4f710510
4f972a51a90164ffb283432237ed26638f1af1eb
35880 F20110331_AACVRF santos_s_Page_045.QC.jpg
e730c3fd084a0fa32bbf644c0873dc0f
880cff75823e25cc86c602426d87bd38f81d3e41
35631 F20110331_AACVQR santos_s_Page_013.QC.jpg
e767aa43e575fdc474da32c576cfd0ce
566182b85f6c687a5503d826ebe07671634dfded
F20110331_AACUNP santos_s_Page_113.tif
54d32fd94be97134792ffad1fa400f92
7807a4e391760a8f56339eed3d9c43f22e5efbe0
F20110331_AACUOD santos_s_Page_127.tif
ac49a4e3559226fee22ffc1bd8815e97
15bdeeff58455a16299bb7b3fcfdb1939f2da667
34110 F20110331_AACVRG santos_s_Page_047.QC.jpg
2b6f995a160c3fcd4ef4090e9a781566
1e90abc1c7f59a43fddc2161528f705905837713
37025 F20110331_AACVQS santos_s_Page_014.QC.jpg
4d3af43c381c036dfcf64d57682aa627
91fbcd892606b71346ff41ce5ceb77979bd8c12b
F20110331_AACUNQ santos_s_Page_114.tif
961c27170ade8aeabe910d1db0a14c60
3372298bdd2308d0b4c4527cf2bf0c20866ad057
F20110331_AACUOE santos_s_Page_128.tif
41873b196b95ffc83de340e779336ef8
90cffd228a5b254ba8d52856db8e97449b1eb98b
38198 F20110331_AACVRH santos_s_Page_053.QC.jpg
dc2c7e294f8f4c7924b9d54717addafe
36554d268b7ee6c69655870688b12a3ee18940b8
35876 F20110331_AACVQT santos_s_Page_015.QC.jpg
86d467b0287f49170e28999603b7797c
6494c8b4f7a97af690be6fae9322bfadcd2ed0d8
F20110331_AACUNR santos_s_Page_115.tif
9931db88ba125a82371a58cc4f16b200
8e253efaf97699123007f15ec51fa1d990a749a8
F20110331_AACUOF santos_s_Page_129.tif
1de08a13801a35d227023f89d4cbd1bc
5097978656e7a49f088b686972034f1aa6024c8e
34646 F20110331_AACVRI santos_s_Page_054.QC.jpg
58aa207e64aa8904b08b80332c049783
6abf46071c0bab4b3f6400d203ae09691bc87b54
36032 F20110331_AACVQU santos_s_Page_019.QC.jpg
1c805c5fd7431a3e30c8feb606a49f46
695076bf8a82619a800cd6ce8d2979a6d7d357b1
F20110331_AACUNS santos_s_Page_116.tif
928df9ae111bf5736871b750247fe31f
72d996529bef2e6410775229276b94f045865755
F20110331_AACUOG santos_s_Page_130.tif
eec7c1899f7c17d9f04c03c31bbd70f1
3fbf9f6ec228dd30823a182f97889caa83d8f5ef
6889 F20110331_AACVRJ santos_s_Page_055.QC.jpg
0fcc5e3fee26ea269d40ad56a3316cce
053dbbffc65ef467826315e63d399e60c3272b24
36167 F20110331_AACVQV santos_s_Page_021.QC.jpg
7c0255c38eb71c4d5ee3f0e60843f85f
5667c0e8bbf245973a60688a4a82638af49de49a
F20110331_AACUNT santos_s_Page_117.tif
5f337b1bc36a2c811a0f89b35655d67d
0ae29efbf39d4e738da4797a039206146f83a1e7
F20110331_AACUOH santos_s_Page_131.tif
05e161820a7511bb716331cd6b9b945a
b21a56507f4f9233cc73e9598e69a27a2cc4f671
35666 F20110331_AACVRK santos_s_Page_060.QC.jpg
8aa1125742472db027b4115a5d3dc6b2
e908eba5b8ecafeef2109d3121c8558e2ddbac17
25863 F20110331_AACVQW santos_s_Page_024.QC.jpg
5dc5ade2a45d988e9d19e0bf348a5638
4cca5c8e728d9986016445a8169b94670c087e95
F20110331_AACUNU santos_s_Page_118.tif
4f57af62803bc22d3e9f83f1a1f555b4
d37d11a635655c9168e1d1d40d56def68abc600b
F20110331_AACUOI santos_s_Page_132.tif
dedf5f86f2ac573193e46c9cf5e49096
af701168c81fad7490b04d8a6595ed92eaa251f2
8754 F20110331_AACVSA santos_s_Page_095.QC.jpg
af559a3023dc8fbbf24f7c083d1c517a
a51ec50b47e2c67e1566760576753c497af1d78f
34733 F20110331_AACVRL santos_s_Page_061.QC.jpg
6501e5b1edc182a0182f6ac6894dde51
eac56123cd819e6e2d6142f2d58bb17876c30287
15494 F20110331_AACVQX santos_s_Page_026.QC.jpg
ba6b4ae16bfb422ad906318cfdc5cd7c
ea9dda989f6415cad03df06000ae5736d8f1f46a
F20110331_AACUNV santos_s_Page_119.tif
5babedd9fc96bb82a8c1aa83d0a40c94
631a526d27ee630f71f277fcd4d890ce35606b25
F20110331_AACUOJ santos_s_Page_133.tif
318d161809ccb303fb1437d3fbd1a4df
94fe1e2520fe45e34b56afb3a0b0d016d8cb7fbf
16155 F20110331_AACVSB santos_s_Page_099.QC.jpg
7de49180420dfec5026e8efd055719ec
8823221902c433be2268ef742f4e6cec51908d77
35868 F20110331_AACVRM santos_s_Page_062.QC.jpg
99939bad29e5e094179d010aa9622908
813d9dd58deba31008985954c3c82d79c4cbb33f
13933 F20110331_AACVQY santos_s_Page_029.QC.jpg
fe9658a57c58153869936d75616c8c12
67e88156117efdab3271cd1ffa07f61dea8311b8
F20110331_AACUNW santos_s_Page_120.tif
4f16e9d35284f282059a02017e6cf9a5
eb2857ca53587cc119e61548f4f30971a371623d
F20110331_AACUOK santos_s_Page_134.tif
e4182dd67abb1a43d9d158c9b023904a
5c5407f84186b887d2e15fb4c653e32154efad24
38003 F20110331_AACVSC santos_s_Page_101.QC.jpg
9406f87f9213ca06e401b44ef94a10fd
33d9070cdee6d425059cb6a6ad91c22a34e33359
14517 F20110331_AACVRN santos_s_Page_063.QC.jpg
2a688b409af97932b86a85a009293735
bbc5058a3dc73eda8dd56b2e1dc5f4abe2b4ad07
36519 F20110331_AACVQZ santos_s_Page_031.QC.jpg
b179a29443a7066afb1db369431994fe
555c9818841ed3f43a3048956b8c737f55e33ad1
F20110331_AACUNX santos_s_Page_121.tif
bce82b90099b7a065f7a125f1d8fa775
3da6646561d8e5910c872c3152e6f72edadc46aa
2099 F20110331_AACUPA santos_s_Page_010.txt
e72a7bbbd7e653d63d2c1b0465c6b6e4
10d4c5c07ee31954c9e27ab5a7409c6f83e85d57
F20110331_AACUOL santos_s_Page_135.tif
93ffe01b377b3521789a4adaee36bd4f
b1f95d8f0165a6a6cec2e31f96a95e53c87b91d1
15459 F20110331_AACVSD santos_s_Page_102.QC.jpg
82d444dba27f5bdc726062c30252f8db
f554ce1db0acbf3c4c1d3141d08b6daf970cdf96
34391 F20110331_AACVRO santos_s_Page_064.QC.jpg
bec40388da71e77ceaed31cee5e39147
964babd8af3ba301fc735c5a77acf432e5e019c4
F20110331_AACUNY santos_s_Page_122.tif
0cdca611f9ffb7957e52b1b410d054da
35e3ce1cce287b86794093d0e9ae231979102e27
2264 F20110331_AACUPB santos_s_Page_011.txt
22b19bf7b615fb190fa27fee768ca6fb
394f1d50f04cd56fa9f997dc7ed011b7cf1796cf
F20110331_AACUOM santos_s_Page_136.tif
7082b9297a3d7a4234cb8a12302a96f2
0c9f189b2443559b8a7d48d5019429e95c5dce02
7888 F20110331_AACVSE santos_s_Page_104.QC.jpg
9fbe68f6a783d85e77bba2e906284773
eab2a2c5f7a921cd54ed317c28be26b2a973ca61
36152 F20110331_AACVRP santos_s_Page_065.QC.jpg
09a9ca675ffac687671fb9a339bef452
64229628c48027f269603b15e92946f228374b55
F20110331_AACUNZ santos_s_Page_123.tif
96f225d42cec256e94b1c614cc7fa42a
b704cfbe4dbaa3bcb695be36eb73515687a54ac3
2221 F20110331_AACUPC santos_s_Page_012.txt
8befb6f7a7ec02c7d8e3088aeb96ffea
a3a917cccf4b59b86b3ce007232a99089b39e398
F20110331_AACUON santos_s_Page_137.tif
788d0f483b22cc4f2864a5f22efbf537
7357aab0e0b7e54157926b2f803e2078373d9be9
34113 F20110331_AACVRQ santos_s_Page_068.QC.jpg
1fb8af9f2b7cd6505ba3a037c47b0b8d
dc680669aa755b8a6bca15359e9d26aa513f1736
F20110331_AACUOO santos_s_Page_138.tif
ac792dd5d6a3ffbc8b2560af8aad4d3d
7b48b952d94cb8eea2bb32156575e4fd34fd4aef
35042 F20110331_AACVSF santos_s_Page_110.QC.jpg
d119308cff2775f5807a0c0b8a18859d
cb4a46722d9813c9d9ba07553c5e2949b364bb5a
38648 F20110331_AACVRR santos_s_Page_069.QC.jpg
4980b6817843ded7fd6c336e415c9209
bcd9b74d9f8ae06acb6115fdb960fd49b9067d0b
2188 F20110331_AACUPD santos_s_Page_013.txt
57be333afc952f375fd747becb405ea9
5592d9f408f2b0e6f7c1e76de0494961cb1ea7a7
F20110331_AACUOP santos_s_Page_139.tif
a8b9a4ccab464bbd8442cb74fe517121
344f8414f633f7359d7f02594e1a98245845ce7d
35893 F20110331_AACVSG santos_s_Page_113.QC.jpg
08a014c90b8692bc6534aa8eba4ee469
6e743aa264bd7535402b75fb6f74c7f0db5c95b8
37487 F20110331_AACVRS santos_s_Page_074.QC.jpg
c1a86cd50237d4e3c51651db5d2f2e85
427cdf86df798cfe7f5589857d55554919421ff1
2193 F20110331_AACUPE santos_s_Page_014.txt
de6101b982cf84a4a10b164f50736e69
a7407f69b2c2f17b017c445267a43a6a4d01c8fd
F20110331_AACUOQ santos_s_Page_140.tif
0694aa897d62d053b375610ee3d5b512
5d1cfc0f80f17f1f05db274d5149e4a246533ad6
34795 F20110331_AACVSH santos_s_Page_119.QC.jpg
5193bbd6e2cde649e3c2776f0a107e7a
de2bc5617755dc7c93539dd73ab62bd5c7e9d79d
11747 F20110331_AACVRT santos_s_Page_078.QC.jpg
e115afa053dd60d93d17c0b0f12eeeed
cf1f58a00cc60be52b48ce795a1ef0f6e361c5b5
2129 F20110331_AACUPF santos_s_Page_015.txt
4d2be0314e0fde2ed41b49e9f92ebe2b
0cd1cac1cfdbed20d4d021893b9d9017b254cc41
502 F20110331_AACUOR santos_s_Page_001.txt
68ccc8f757e0c4cd33ae294cf6b118b0
03957b8727e536203a285513a90d5c437739b415
36463 F20110331_AACVSI santos_s_Page_120.QC.jpg
1bf0f428b9dc8d770b14ffa597747cfd
f899e2414c6042468aa43672e0226a6e8361a164
36754 F20110331_AACVRU santos_s_Page_080.QC.jpg
b222b69591a4dc41240252397938255a
c354404ca5857653e73cfe438350d1feabad41ed
2142 F20110331_AACUPG santos_s_Page_016.txt
c0734307c6f1e0422ff4c72d8e0f6ed8
4a2f522646a83bbd5ae559de4a204b6acd353739
95 F20110331_AACUOS santos_s_Page_002.txt
2dbbd2bdec40416b2eab6b7dbc07d635
e99cb120772dc3e5f0a15c93a4fdfca8d4163f69
37334 F20110331_AACVSJ santos_s_Page_121.QC.jpg
134826120dece3143f62b8dc60df816b
4ef0d1d773de99843f314d30299f3aacac444d59
38776 F20110331_AACVRV santos_s_Page_081.QC.jpg
62198a7b98d619cd35661c7f3ba6cd00
d4784f606f19a0250e51490e0b6a8efab1a3ff72
2229 F20110331_AACUPH santos_s_Page_017.txt
7b4f795b83573a094b55f9aeeafa450d
d97d6a83f458c2a92da9209967e9f9a5b2fa9816
82 F20110331_AACUOT santos_s_Page_003.txt
776218a3e21b434424b73c7f799b1aa1
4162c60c708ddd62d51e1f20a9c7b44548683bd3
8773 F20110331_AACVSK santos_s_Page_125.QC.jpg
9c5e8f9946d8bb08d1791a940fcf4777
4f52de619e3939286f6d3755f3a20dcbb9dc0dda
12780 F20110331_AACVRW santos_s_Page_083.QC.jpg
da2c2c810d006e76a882e57e8318ce47
0178c34a49ef700064c15083bfb4fd49cdb1d44b
2116 F20110331_AACUPI santos_s_Page_018.txt
a2d89711d7d1c94e70b6bdf8b4e89402
ea026dfd9af76d561bf77ff8432ca31274de77aa
670 F20110331_AACUOU santos_s_Page_004.txt
33d349282b6d1d7f630228a457d55cf7
c34fede51659fe368465dfbbf140657431e5d608
8026 F20110331_AACVTA santos_s_Page_025thm.jpg
9569e6fb780709f60fc15b5d036b1a23
ec5f528c40db0d8522b951ce627e27bc562fe5bc
12325 F20110331_AACVSL santos_s_Page_126.QC.jpg
ff06b3aae15ab0ced24e3762a6ab3df1
de74d57e5c9a71eb871dba4f35302c3e3f32390e
36068 F20110331_AACVRX santos_s_Page_085.QC.jpg
714afc5bc42c4cdb25739e8456a134a6
6f80982437d5b3e26aa86babfa02008071ff952b
2164 F20110331_AACUPJ santos_s_Page_019.txt
d4d0bd01a18d9e14990a3da973341cf8
c8aeb96110995c79e61d97e30888d7aa71dbfb06
4235 F20110331_AACUOV santos_s_Page_005.txt
30491468f454ee947c769000e3562c79
717665a70b17144e5a28ed7c968f5c1161af973d
4428 F20110331_AACVTB santos_s_Page_026thm.jpg
b033f282cf4c4fe91ad555c071a551e0
7031c389541985f3edae78bee5db0de945f1bcc3
14961 F20110331_AACVSM santos_s_Page_132.QC.jpg
6d947f2b5a1b82f9022616d72dadc0fd
30dfce53c3ded5710091098e82cb2545c353e1be
35703 F20110331_AACVRY santos_s_Page_091.QC.jpg
058da3677874e9fb35ab2960f3358847
255932b227aa6611d903f181e6e501f9074d6a3d
2334 F20110331_AACUPK santos_s_Page_020.txt
50e0d503bd0fce02bd6b4f2983d6f4c8
08b239dc83d31e16eb4785cd588b8b80938ebda3
2644 F20110331_AACUOW santos_s_Page_006.txt
4687d43f020fc52e8e645673e7f85a24
1c3db115c52117d0bc8169a01b194a92e06afed1
8714 F20110331_AACVTC santos_s_Page_028thm.jpg
4d9e34794ecf1a70be52adef0fd29971
551ceda64d4858e5b0efbf44cf61d69a8f02ad72
10804 F20110331_AACVSN santos_s_Page_134.QC.jpg
781196337a9fd02b62d3b388642e3404
a2581a019ef1d3088acb9f8e18c4a991bf449d6b
16017 F20110331_AACVRZ santos_s_Page_093.QC.jpg
3a826bafc9d854576e8521062570bf98
b645f435cf01b0142fa682c0be46a06d579c1f5b
2149 F20110331_AACUQA santos_s_Page_036.txt
c3f9bcf8734ca6838d869b270f8c0c1d
ff68c8c53c49a05bef3b7569d27197195b198402
2194 F20110331_AACUPL santos_s_Page_021.txt
bf79bc00f19409caa207ce98484227d2
904bc65c1c01f940e147ad0d00a2b28133dacc3a
2230 F20110331_AACUOX santos_s_Page_007.txt
71a69c0fa2e1b35584c286e84fa4d855
3cd06bb24036ba1558cc8914f3f4740c90daf0a5
4508 F20110331_AACVTD santos_s_Page_029thm.jpg
cd62da115f6c9db9de5bfd0c19ebe248
507f5a48a0be057eba6b68d91cc5e308f5eec021
543 F20110331_AACVSO santos_s_Page_002thm.jpg
cedc4717122d2d129a62bcb67b01e75b
d2632bb0611c121405c633d0d7b849c286108a8a
2236 F20110331_AACUQB santos_s_Page_037.txt
1d4651f59c8adbed1a70d1db0316fa8e
6c403483e63f7848aaf12c7c2bfbe10e666751a3
2216 F20110331_AACUPM santos_s_Page_022.txt
2ebd7ded3247cc9693f9ad90d237b355
92ca0fb9cb96b5ffeab2dc5fd5787c2be4a93d8e
2137 F20110331_AACUOY santos_s_Page_008.txt
a3f359fb3b513276f9d7fa127c8982c5
64c7fc1f696e444815b9dd837c5057ba87af974b
4045 F20110331_AACVTE santos_s_Page_030thm.jpg
f0e889fe4d37c6ab83e685002ce7e969
992516a3ef8ef78738d341669d0d8bb3e0cebdb4
2969 F20110331_AACVSP santos_s_Page_004thm.jpg
9af7708fc87165a5f29a3dd11cf5061c
fdf9ba72c820e253be3f10630156a0b052f1554d
2145 F20110331_AACUQC santos_s_Page_038.txt
cbf0208634df35a438c7f4fc93a0f787
4d1dcb22190a8b4f9392423aa7ec75c9311553f8
F20110331_AACUPN santos_s_Page_023.txt
282b37a44949396cdd698821674e12fb
5fdc69f0b611a341a2bc57a9a085fe453206265a
264 F20110331_AACUOZ santos_s_Page_009.txt
7525b1bfe085569337f91ccfa906ba99
5080757e7d2d5c01a17dcfabb2009fd016be28f7
9194 F20110331_AACVTF santos_s_Page_033thm.jpg
10ea59a88a0d923b201fd3f478ab6d23
ff970b395f223e80c34e5bc3a202068c04d82055
6051 F20110331_AACVSQ santos_s_Page_006thm.jpg
f16f31add2e9f56f4f692fc0383e5939
7124fa322f9e0b5307b39a0b52ae94856a142e9f
2153 F20110331_AACUQD santos_s_Page_039.txt
fd743873cbe0573a6ea38601b13620b7
461783801ad821ff4ea6bcec4f61c29d628537cb
1539 F20110331_AACUPO santos_s_Page_024.txt
ad9d22daf07157012c1f9e3e6b91f297
1c490e6c87ea9e60fc21da84f0bc8fe5827a3b1b
1576 F20110331_AACVSR santos_s_Page_009thm.jpg
13a4690c038b77db461613ae6202a85b
8f737ae9bbcafb7206509b6c75cfa94bd91edd0f
2039 F20110331_AACUPP santos_s_Page_025.txt
67eff9e2a1870df1a38979fdf8303fa2
2fa00e5cc499113a901678f7946d15570e69fbfd
8699 F20110331_AACVTG santos_s_Page_035thm.jpg
9d217527ea9842b8611d164aed729214
c7d5267af24817c2d41f2c5131dd5a28e7888af4
F20110331_AACVSS santos_s_Page_013thm.jpg
9a2a9f65bb06e060eb5c6b4638ef9e98
4aff72980bcbb292fcf9416397c8cf956850e36e
2202 F20110331_AACUQE santos_s_Page_040.txt
eb75588a29d3316fa9e59563079eac78
bdf2e6752ee25935023541075b1bc5f3e323f6ed
1579 F20110331_AACUPQ santos_s_Page_026.txt
57154b023fd22a94bf45a33f1edd506d
063b4d8d20d622dfcd4140e4257ac309a4bd2d5d
6670 F20110331_AACVTH santos_s_Page_038thm.jpg
4f10299f6bef2e6555edc93c508b34b0
cb36bc03abf0001ce8fb3978668deafa4d9d6df1
8705 F20110331_AACVST santos_s_Page_014thm.jpg
f33b4bcf549462ebc21efaf38d5112b2
fd657da6634ddbfe78fd24677a947efc29ff6956
2233 F20110331_AACUQF santos_s_Page_041.txt
14cd094a989d3d03964ed346841d03e5
dd1b0447a2f41ddf6c6f5357162afeec4bf0ec67
2160 F20110331_AACUPR santos_s_Page_027.txt
95fa0d24cdcb3431b2426e467ccbe249
d4879fc6e0bcd9393df86f9837c4dd5a30a95cd4
7649 F20110331_AACVTI santos_s_Page_039thm.jpg
690459ad420c0a2c2d3d1165b80f6fd2
6a0d7950f1ed1a23d917603f442895a2cd3271e1
8795 F20110331_AACVSU santos_s_Page_015thm.jpg
f4ba5d95237abdbe88f2cfc1fffc8ae9
5944e27c799e0fbadc9201a44417fe09be5baf0a
2158 F20110331_AACUQG santos_s_Page_042.txt
1ea26641f3ef003a7af5e1305f733ec4
2383e0ec9915d72e9ccf48ff8eb1c2e873909eef
2070 F20110331_AACUPS santos_s_Page_028.txt
0586df99309251ebed020b0a9e4fe38f
9faaf72ee817997497bb9975daee7c6c9ddd3c11
8793 F20110331_AACVTJ santos_s_Page_040thm.jpg
f1e3eb700efc56d12ae7eb84401dcb7f
c54a98d79bf2620d124be55b15077ff2e4ea8f40
8911 F20110331_AACVSV santos_s_Page_017thm.jpg
3538eb5d5792f958bf4afe6ed80a083f
8f444f31c3830c08533b0dc9795b755bcdcfd068
2562 F20110331_AACUQH santos_s_Page_043.txt
08593b7513eed0947455fa46a6d5934d
f846824ac478e88cdeb9875a4edaa89787a231c9
2851 F20110331_AACUPT santos_s_Page_029.txt
4dddbd0b6450f17f302dbd62b8f253bb
0ff490aeeb4732d4ad6f927d73d37f3e45a6c10e
8883 F20110331_AACVTK santos_s_Page_042thm.jpg
1ed4846ca3fe50dd0bfff91c1ef38db1
bbdac24d2d0db918df2d9b02e1fdb3e194fca799
8761 F20110331_AACVSW santos_s_Page_018thm.jpg
b160394cad51a7a55c183c493f227fdc
5a12608f21f39f245af3abd0a1474763ea534ec6
F20110331_AACUQI santos_s_Page_044.txt
2418fb074b8ef384fb732638a24b17f0
0751041205e99d0cf02f89b8bce465658e3d1a3d
2731 F20110331_AACUPU santos_s_Page_030.txt
3f3344b3076920315a7a3481845a7bf0
d76bb1eff068247750d5f68997282129b5c6ff1d
3763 F20110331_AACVUA santos_s_Page_082thm.jpg
f33d486c7efdf7133ab715335c1eb400
552984267bcf85c2a00c25dac098e3dfae5d5215
8573 F20110331_AACVTL santos_s_Page_047thm.jpg
9eeaa4141099ce53f12c826a8b21d137
9a20477aed049e09a7fb866a2b77942df6b41398
8670 F20110331_AACVSX santos_s_Page_019thm.jpg
5b3d942b97cb12a3be112dac22887a38
02002fde896c6900f6cbce32c3f3397106ad0450
2155 F20110331_AACUQJ santos_s_Page_045.txt
709896350e121551e20ce8f3504644a5
690442b293575c55a0a7866a242fce790a5a82ba
2228 F20110331_AACUPV santos_s_Page_031.txt
2a6dc1c5ece25d1983bbf94c682a3592
f7fd74b8a2f2c4f5f2442a0cbe30c327fa0fc8c3
9104 F20110331_AACVUB santos_s_Page_084thm.jpg
fb990c94c269b20fcceca5a28500aa07
aed8c71868a0f8c70d0ec7c48c484856b7d4db1d
8938 F20110331_AACVTM santos_s_Page_048thm.jpg
621ce25f3e5aeee4c0eef0b3d1c4f644
c3af6df4fc0619da11eb5d8df94b56659c3d6ba3
8968 F20110331_AACVSY santos_s_Page_020thm.jpg
4b0dfbe03993ab6edfcd6e9f0ce91c6b
1a4c8a56724a27f1b6902bfa2eb1099f51d45a6c
2047 F20110331_AACUQK santos_s_Page_046.txt
bf28fb3255b996b20c6f9fe852adcea2
4292ceaca5f1838ad12994dab4e00a98b19c313f
2257 F20110331_AACUPW santos_s_Page_032.txt
41dc2a3222d4898c13427103054a36a9
ae8f9985bb63522e93315027fe7b20dbbe2ae47d
9025 F20110331_AACVUC santos_s_Page_085thm.jpg
37dd062a747da2016cbe73c34afc2564
fa33344720dc451ae4c992b5e60f2ec31ee91aac
9251 F20110331_AACVTN santos_s_Page_051thm.jpg
956b60ef0e3ed6066a3744d911b9ecfc
8d721e44cd68d8c51e00a04e993d395bcf5b4bd5
8739 F20110331_AACVSZ santos_s_Page_022thm.jpg
c55028ac57e8af77274685f4a5882107
036aa87d84f7b4d6cb62a28e2ae7958865417cda
2111 F20110331_AACUQL santos_s_Page_047.txt
9afc963efcd013af6c59410097b24bb5
1051d8f4d3857cb7e59f7ae5f9278d7a202f9c80
F20110331_AACUPX santos_s_Page_033.txt
171b51d128eae68c3a11b67a02bf23a0
12e95766c804e0e14f706c86fc56a3a051aa1c94
1420 F20110331_AACURA santos_s_Page_063.txt
bdb52a37ccf2e56b5fbfb11364b0b58e
300b73f21cdbf93d8998c517db922013e3673ef4
4024 F20110331_AACVUD santos_s_Page_087thm.jpg
2f02f90fdfadd8dd4f192cef43998820
e86ba363c5b30a6a586a7ff8324e17e850dd295c
8975 F20110331_AACVTO santos_s_Page_052thm.jpg
9eb467762277d370210897be286eab39
ee4394eabca22a1be2a6c7f09748f690ab45010e
2128 F20110331_AACUQM santos_s_Page_048.txt
42be884a15ac6214991ab57abc9c354b
3ab7be784334e047d705a67c2d4bc3e77cd5a233
2163 F20110331_AACUPY santos_s_Page_034.txt
c6f6fadc8bc59c846e48fdf6ef6c066c
787a7b277cdbaaef6c6102894e90d19c5053f4a1
2115 F20110331_AACURB santos_s_Page_064.txt
51d22778837ee8ea6eb53dc6194b8efd
dc1268a4540a7e3feab6359f4d03b703317319c2
3769 F20110331_AACVUE santos_s_Page_088thm.jpg
d44fc85f3a15dab0e65c068dc63f9651
d95f35718f11692735a39b11c88d2f5cddc56c8b
8475 F20110331_AACVTP santos_s_Page_056thm.jpg
3cea3c94678e7666a9c118f49f6d2bdb
9e8548b95b606321e5bf6ae2b67d85703bbf4936
2060 F20110331_AACUQN santos_s_Page_049.txt
1a8af1e82840a05750999686b4b9b202
a8a93893f49537b0d8748ead19b855fe39a6bbf3
2250 F20110331_AACUPZ santos_s_Page_035.txt
318b56b6aabaa955a988c061a37b481c
f6a5bb3e75388405411e48fced58e63c2176c1a2
2143 F20110331_AACURC santos_s_Page_065.txt
e94353dbeeb8ce1e028fc92fa2e7251f
32d39e0221810490df8ce093d3f9908be722740e
9022 F20110331_AACVUF santos_s_Page_090thm.jpg
b66018980d51ac7850c80b6efc8908c6
a4948a4c42fa1b6c5acfcc505333a3da1d46165e
4245 F20110331_AACVTQ santos_s_Page_057thm.jpg
9402ed5584fb966ffd9af6a81569decf
b6388d3d7119365cbd85ebe7b28e3e0f1454ad24
2226 F20110331_AACUQO santos_s_Page_050.txt
81f33eeac9a1ed5f79cdcb991107513f
bc5d253885e8772b58987685d729d7dffa475435
2314 F20110331_AACURD santos_s_Page_066.txt
e2637d737b94d873053b0e87f76e7072
4db1e6159fa3e412e47e2841196de89cfc2c3373
4960 F20110331_AACVUG santos_s_Page_094thm.jpg
594153fc30e475523cfde86f24ec3dcc
ddb15bacc174121bce43cbde6aade46d3f332ca3
2648 F20110331_AACVTR santos_s_Page_058thm.jpg
86a066f91a1a059573872b70fa347fdb
af0d01dc9ff4b8674d022b55acf7874072661883
2270 F20110331_AACUQP santos_s_Page_051.txt
33cd67cbc6bc513e93205e774ba11deb
baf21389bf5a28993c7913d58d3e78ab4ea3948f
1893 F20110331_AACURE santos_s_Page_067.txt
a507885c695c4a726c0920cc469f41f2
fef2c81fc9cd0122a4c8a46b27c48bc84f4d5528
F20110331_AACVTS santos_s_Page_062thm.jpg
f0feb73cb0bcf88ebcc5c47f66cb9af0
a014aad866052adc04b7036820ec919203b4a67b
F20110331_AACUQQ santos_s_Page_052.txt
7371680414ef498750bca9674b6a00e3
a205fcb2711d8275c42af4f490c414ca48927cd5
2821 F20110331_AACVUH santos_s_Page_095thm.jpg
b6837fcf58b472e6f9cfb76a7d4950b5
d7b7c31f9f5c28f7e63bfbedaacc93d73829affd
4199 F20110331_AACVTT santos_s_Page_063thm.jpg
3df0504c9cc0fc18ad0b883ff764deac
b94808e0119721aeafaa963db177a09b50665cc5
2309 F20110331_AACUQR santos_s_Page_053.txt
e0b5e9d00f5aa2fb7a9f16319f1ca517
ae7d958aecbb7b942bd6339a9ae3b9eab7cadd7e
2080 F20110331_AACURF santos_s_Page_068.txt
063f7291f37119d1d126bc92efdab5de
7a8e094009177ec9b52085b2b633b2d6e200cc2f
8965 F20110331_AACVUI santos_s_Page_097thm.jpg
cde6f7f9a0821a3a3df8feb56d03a11e
fb012968a3f871f4e02a430ba6c85e93be31fd5b
8837 F20110331_AACVTU santos_s_Page_065thm.jpg
51e4c95bbee36559eff52d32e1cba6a5
c8e9dd7801c06c01c41c03af2f408d4ca57374d2
2078 F20110331_AACUQS santos_s_Page_054.txt
e8f2e116aa0af77fbe3ec46b0a823d1a
c0f31828b67d0828d8ee09f6b4015499f01e2576
2323 F20110331_AACURG santos_s_Page_069.txt
7400b64552436c2ed34b60a23ab270c9
8ef764c6105bc808bea7ad182f81b2b8242f31ea
4670 F20110331_AACVUJ santos_s_Page_099thm.jpg
a12ae662daf2496452df2d4b78e8c960
d1ab2dead6ba1875ecd712194e9cae1d1c730a60
5652 F20110331_AACVTV santos_s_Page_072thm.jpg
ab7c808c46cd14b14b910ca70a356243
e2850a40db4daa905aa99287b9990d4e1d518c07
338 F20110331_AACUQT santos_s_Page_055.txt
3ffdb82b40b09c780aee48414ee758f0
fdaafd154d8b88ddacd797593f6ef05257d6ac1d
1858 F20110331_AACURH santos_s_Page_070.txt
ea496c414a0059a5feadccedd81672eb
c3ad5378fcd4968e034dba6297df335f7ab254d6
9317 F20110331_AACVUK santos_s_Page_101thm.jpg
ba23402f9fdbeefe2fe80167b2615dc5
74005ce1d346664ac53c075524133aa35ae261b0
9179 F20110331_AACVTW santos_s_Page_074thm.jpg
20f1627501f1e731d9e1e7ed7ace9763
fa01025a42e3daabe73f5d19e6dc6897fc664d63
1569 F20110331_AACUQU santos_s_Page_057.txt
8e047a858917e15e2783d6b93047f9ed
4c84570491b886fc5626e263fee51b6413a411e8
1652 F20110331_AACURI santos_s_Page_071.txt
59d78edd3ae1b96e86aaedba9811fa4b
c48260f49ddbdb8f28b530e1b4fd8fafac0bed52
4149 F20110331_AACVUL santos_s_Page_106thm.jpg
576337dd370ee790098a1150fc5a83f3
c72699d62535b78d65b08f81a4f182a8e7cf3baa
3469 F20110331_AACVTX santos_s_Page_077thm.jpg
47c9ace74832e0678af422bad79a4b71
a831cf44b7cb36d86062627c322b30873caeaf5f
996 F20110331_AACUQV santos_s_Page_058.txt
11814eafc15fcb6561a8efb8820fe116
0c17ac7408490148f08c4bfc55ed2fe7eedc8b58
3634 F20110331_AACURJ santos_s_Page_072.txt
1e6924a1add51aa46d9203c15dad00aa
c6940f03271b35d65912fee17291c24a10415a66
8344 F20110331_AACVUM santos_s_Page_107thm.jpg
aa0faccbdec461d55c12ba711af93f17
687a713a9b0a5ecf6679f9f595fae72c36febcd2
8868 F20110331_AACVTY santos_s_Page_079thm.jpg
9a03335cfcc20eda5eb0ce5cfe34e6bc
9bfcf9611116d7bc2248275335ab2314180685fb
2173 F20110331_AACUQW santos_s_Page_059.txt
c22accccda05c27bf66a12e17f65054d
fafc763a53fb190b3e3b9664e1624acd19c6b632
2043 F20110331_AACURK santos_s_Page_073.txt
f059e0acf07e999c04064fbf49a0ba6c
87f65eb1748a0d1d2609d0ee11b444ab35bfced2
8768 F20110331_AACVUN santos_s_Page_109thm.jpg
b62bbdfce2d07c96a71f31b4bf8d72fc
b6ff8ff298bff8d2c262949b1268b64e963ae036
9190 F20110331_AACVTZ santos_s_Page_081thm.jpg
32b2e73362829571c6169b1c4e375fb8
b9ead7adf0dfd3b85c0a0333a5838c6394af7510
2141 F20110331_AACUQX santos_s_Page_060.txt
d4a1fe4f551fa9053c6db93978598cd6
8dc79805d1401633e8cd4c1c2bd5274644e9a881
2209 F20110331_AACUSA santos_s_Page_089.txt
80e8d018c98b51763e1e518687d3c0aa
5549b41649bf78c83def308d6afe083902b7e894
2276 F20110331_AACURL santos_s_Page_074.txt
b445108e7704fda502e8fff210e216d4
46e519f54d2a66b3b80bf76ff46525f9d343bb0d
8900 F20110331_AACVUO santos_s_Page_110thm.jpg
efb57e92f02a9197b5f93c60994db2d4
2d51af1416043e268e24d8f0bd21a069039fefd2
2218 F20110331_AACUSB santos_s_Page_090.txt
e742f3a897ecc0ce5b2590a2325592d2
c660b5b6c22d61bf809d2d0b30f257b4c7701121
2244 F20110331_AACURM santos_s_Page_075.txt
3c079ba17a71b886b358a299b76c61b8
13c16c8c9c211c327d4aa4a5956834714de1d002
2091 F20110331_AACUQY santos_s_Page_061.txt
7e112954f611b1dc59eead24cef8a3be
0c6294d61b717f53bd17f17e720ba75bc098256b
8708 F20110331_AACVUP santos_s_Page_113thm.jpg
b8fba940f7d893caa3a939f27a760304
99e13e8ddc0b3b1204f1c030205b131df5c2df8d
2122 F20110331_AACUSC santos_s_Page_091.txt
c2164383f3875ba027786b7d66be2ac3
c34cebfd2184ffeffad44832d621483f2245993f
2185 F20110331_AACURN santos_s_Page_076.txt
e2d7124f62662363c20b5f3c2a9ef2b1
358321f098a4944a79a9af7e2ac61c7039e2b249
F20110331_AACUQZ santos_s_Page_062.txt
d17d236a54097ee514fcbd3b3b98bde8
65d0ec0b56202cbd0a95d9598d40ec7744735fc5
9124 F20110331_AACVUQ santos_s_Page_114thm.jpg
a0f31b6a41d011a32cc84de62fce5ac8
d9a9da442bb205a26992bafa30b6662d26dae0b9
F20110331_AACUSD santos_s_Page_092.txt
3e3c41906cc2a8ef475808cf89717b7d
9481bf35c28cfc1651eb97219a00628856a94961
1385 F20110331_AACURO santos_s_Page_077.txt
359fc00e8fe762b88ffff6f728b06f0a
491e51c9263afc3f7055486dbff106ae149b2663
F20110331_AACVUR santos_s_Page_118thm.jpg
7920af6135a34002eae91e084fd5ade2
98fd452406fd3f17cab350fbb0cdc601578262ba
1735 F20110331_AACUSE santos_s_Page_093.txt
29fa375a366d25ee79c3720f520884c9
2e1607ba1303acac940fd083700a3219fecfe5d4
1387 F20110331_AACURP santos_s_Page_078.txt
12683d8cbc216a2411eb1ae7b7585d22
c684a7acdb7ec13c9a88f8bb3b7bfa4a5d93e253
8648 F20110331_AACVUS santos_s_Page_119thm.jpg
5de0b1c25f4148ab706661dd799008a2
4fadfcb4c201ebf283efee934e45b69aeb48f57b
1716 F20110331_AACUSF santos_s_Page_094.txt
3c8ae6fe29dfd9523536f1bbe7f035cf
d52cfa55630c492e8555c194198d6d2bc17d8a2b
2117 F20110331_AACURQ santos_s_Page_079.txt
a696395046bb57526848c572f5c61ae8
b1e34fb60c8982384066339c19a6720ad8689d47
2875 F20110331_AACVUT santos_s_Page_122thm.jpg
5a2c56f2c472553ca54379f270f34847
df7b5791f224eedaa3e20b22a794ffd56822e6d9
2170 F20110331_AACURR santos_s_Page_080.txt
a667ddf8c0a439e31014e08cdfc32fa6
1c9d85c1d641d2a3c6b78f676ccae111768ddd58
3093 F20110331_AACVUU santos_s_Page_125thm.jpg
38b62b98fc35c3df1b07102a89287970
f26e3cd7f40a1963680949b549d800293b35f013
858 F20110331_AACUSG santos_s_Page_095.txt
d96cf155a8efde1ded0a984a9f360121
45ea8d6b0ac04ee1613cf21a006f2303d6d70a9c
2295 F20110331_AACURS santos_s_Page_081.txt
7e5a3c55d8fbea6eaac1643326e74404
628b9be8b48eeca677c345672d99308fad6b72d0
6375 F20110331_AACVUV santos_s_Page_131thm.jpg
399ada600fdc6db5cb03a13d04f61656
13a06844ed01dfb8e249235ea04156c60d2736bc
2148 F20110331_AACUSH santos_s_Page_096.txt
a446605a9ec209f48f3098bd5f3a2df9
7d51a6ec664342696b965f8de4e882ee728a0958
1436 F20110331_AACURT santos_s_Page_082.txt
847fa930c0ca6ca996595e45a5b5a38e
d6c361c9845aa4952517067938e13f35d8792414
3546 F20110331_AACVUW santos_s_Page_134thm.jpg
04b02a61e8f45f478e5e4fa7d693f3e6
41168ef6ea40eca45298f301e13d444f73a2c90f
2297 F20110331_AACUSI santos_s_Page_097.txt
7daf87d704ef37cbf6379e16624d6051
47ec26e4e84cda08093d9f8b517da97fdd469ce1
1653 F20110331_AACURU santos_s_Page_083.txt
e27a832123fe0e06abf7f525b436598a
b0cf8e1df33be31207d6b7b193ceaa2281b8d82e
F20110331_AACVUX santos_s_Page_140thm.jpg
0f3244e97ae55aefb4e6f4b488e73a42
c9524dea6f7561eaba7355b7496f2243d49c2e35
2087 F20110331_AACUSJ santos_s_Page_098.txt
e95fbc6a0e28363ab3d276ba3dff9533
b40141f186608525338914fc891a994b52b460f0
F20110331_AACURV santos_s_Page_084.txt
666ad774ea8214ec178502af72f7e832
4f47661a6d5d9b81baf9ea863578fbfbb3075a96
1842 F20110331_AACUSK santos_s_Page_099.txt
d1ab0d9c2648281dce33d07ee0be7d35
3a902df0a9d39fb9c719f499fb5325d7a66817ca
F20110331_AACURW santos_s_Page_085.txt
d7c01e493ec3f882c1495a0de81e8a8e
2ee6f3943412d63119b402c51feac0e5aab748b3
2374 F20110331_AACUSL santos_s_Page_100.txt
b179c43c172a5595550414df51f85eed
f6d4363afb74376f4076625be276e53f2f288e9f
2348 F20110331_AACURX santos_s_Page_086.txt
a0f2a21e90c9fc30364a280924203178
4089c4420f9aa470ede96be899fb85f377e60fc7
2191 F20110331_AACUTA santos_s_Page_115.txt
9d77b8ebe06dc2be807e4445595cbe04
feb7dd4648fa79755a64d1eecc744f615645ae42
2263 F20110331_AACUSM santos_s_Page_101.txt
9ffa4a6cf742a672f0f830e75dbee1e6
8965fc1b219c0ea21d2009cfd9a22789e77e6c63
1803 F20110331_AACURY santos_s_Page_087.txt
3656d1af81ec3a12055b8bc308466c78
b3426cf53ffa22bc8626b94f517eb1da48a5413b
F20110331_AACUTB santos_s_Page_116.txt
60380a1ce2a8d84b79192141025e5dc3
eda63d011efa09f4249538661c323e4b1a56a64b
1905 F20110331_AACUSN santos_s_Page_102.txt
88b806200297cec0141d22af7a12115d
85811391f0feab1440cf9ad26af0b6958f541fe6
1673 F20110331_AACURZ santos_s_Page_088.txt
743c1c1deeee10e218786ab5e3aa59b0
3156bf3dbdd6d88159fb26cc642738c076c2fe99
2064 F20110331_AACUTC santos_s_Page_117.txt
c447cfb9e7e23214393e97c5b9bb746b
6311e13f156ae7158078360af799e372210577ce
1888 F20110331_AACUSO santos_s_Page_103.txt
d011494f5ee456ef35c36a337f2cb9c5
5956513f6fcb4076d3ce95ba8c76f490d58ab370
2065 F20110331_AACUTD santos_s_Page_118.txt
259ee0a51ae0f61566609f07dffc1dc6
fcc46e0264e546ac64ddd47b6ec486043e673e73
791 F20110331_AACUSP santos_s_Page_104.txt
257019aa47b2bdaa875469ca26d25704
6312c32f7acc931d87e5a7a5f99fda3bc8321f1e
F20110331_AACUTE santos_s_Page_119.txt
6a518b319d05d2e9b6f916eb7430943a
575179bee5003bf14e92c971019a5819f728bc95
2147 F20110331_AACUSQ santos_s_Page_105.txt
67f97f0c2a84421461087a7713d7b63f
e73e76ef7878c76684d0838fe47af5a66026be7a
F20110331_AACUTF santos_s_Page_120.txt
35279ffb757611421f099a19b3f60ca4
97c92a4f1b4c5a57025a034852fe53306d5b6e69
945 F20110331_AACUSR santos_s_Page_106.txt
8ca0122d06f53b0f21016fd8f85db77b
f42b67719f35daa831ae8782d3ec9f6b3af2d316
2301 F20110331_AACUTG santos_s_Page_121.txt
5c9bb39c65bf631fb3453d4285c9b92e
afaa60763440c8470cb81742ca8c293926281742
2134 F20110331_AACUSS santos_s_Page_107.txt
c9162280b3a3487663fbdd964d02e0c8
f0ee50a7c30fc30f2b8ec7c452c60df6979c8252
F20110331_AACUST santos_s_Page_108.txt
8369a4e80916e7e8662d0159bc93bfb4
24d77fddc94af6a72d32fe1bae796aa36461b761
614 F20110331_AACUTH santos_s_Page_122.txt
b7aaad5e185abae024603b3d70f24a6e
0c13224ed38e898581a312f66f756cf6e98f19bf
2172 F20110331_AACUSU santos_s_Page_109.txt
36b010aac436bf73c06fe908cb1808fe
c9c27b4a1f6c6f4f5fb343f76ce704afe2220ef5
1696 F20110331_AACUTI santos_s_Page_123.txt
f6757fcf7c5dd22f436614081f45b1ca
6291f0ed2a524730040cb91c74073532cc4c2445
2151 F20110331_AACUSV santos_s_Page_110.txt
158892d5bf072a30f7776da672f2cd49
08a967d3ca66a8b78edca49f719158b4204f8ddb
807 F20110331_AACUTJ santos_s_Page_124.txt
327ae67b9d73f86941ea02e0c6707928
d9f2756a9b8d4cbd75e168aa94f2ea4bc7b99030
2139 F20110331_AACUSW santos_s_Page_111.txt
d83f85ac77f70617c869a65bebb02ceb
2a67c68fac4179bf9396a017c348f27e659961a6
633 F20110331_AACUTK santos_s_Page_125.txt
e1ad09983fb03aff47e81e9c26d24189
2cf6ffd1b1ca863f61b65496d39d87a32feaf741
2199 F20110331_AACUSX santos_s_Page_112.txt
04203d68144430b6652cf30eb412013b
f061903bb456ed6ef382369495a63c323e568b92
8288 F20110331_AACUUA santos_s_Page_001.pro
485fb5cb5bded7b16aa1e19bde131ae0
8c4c29cf81fa27b3045b860c84a00f5449f377c3
1014 F20110331_AACUTL santos_s_Page_126.txt
3f4bbd31f7f0570d6325e9d25388d25a
6ab03ed79aae9c1b08884458ee81f0e8b1ae3d77
F20110331_AACUSY santos_s_Page_113.txt
2fefc7c984997430d8858b692b61a6c3
77d7e42ad8f479b6426d5eaffd7db46083d779d3
1016 F20110331_AACUUB santos_s_Page_002.pro
8526c4eb340add8c0ee6be557960386a
d1546366386891cbd03416c1e3a755dbbd14f632
1376 F20110331_AACUTM santos_s_Page_127.txt
8bd39e015beafb5d73522deb73a7c156
2fc153c0c213263129b946208db5f48500ef0268
F20110331_AACUSZ santos_s_Page_114.txt
506f9735338ccda3a7ff2d3373d54fb3
e7f54524594160400332824f06836520d639aba7
780 F20110331_AACUUC santos_s_Page_003.pro
0ec795e9f0bd013be48a1d6bd0568805
fa8c9c5a7de2ff0d4acc33036bcc293b3254d4d1
1427 F20110331_AACUTN santos_s_Page_128.txt
276aab25c80baf38dd15a113df991a4e
9d5eb64dc0cc9e3a4012499ca9638ab07db85cb8
15757 F20110331_AACUUD santos_s_Page_004.pro
763fae366ab4167cd929b479327a25c3
55178201bcf8a737f285e48a7342c948bb5bc689
1415 F20110331_AACUTO santos_s_Page_129.txt
2f23e0c069b004fb3ab8c5c33958102a
a55fc7e8b1240360c0907d2860f5598c5710122b
104502 F20110331_AACUUE santos_s_Page_005.pro
e3e799cbce677fee16f98e210fd8822c
fc81f8415566746bcd888fc35ed600a0d45a7f27
1297 F20110331_AACUTP santos_s_Page_130.txt
ff5d718eaeea9d39ccb0c8f3cec82f39
861565c11154d5ec09b18b7b91d56988819f3435
71619 F20110331_AACUUF santos_s_Page_006.pro
0623ea14a358011f8790da92394ce222
393b438b8f3816b6c37cb518f4aff46a4b43eeb4
1041 F20110331_AACUTQ santos_s_Page_131.txt
196c2539543dca3b4115d2d7d8ffd9aa
c3fd94091076e1222a5b0cdc775909dfe046c395
55465 F20110331_AACUUG santos_s_Page_007.pro
98cd0cf66591c3587b7bb9c78c8a3abf
ad46691ab70303c6220ae3d818717c8c45e08929
942 F20110331_AACUTR santos_s_Page_132.txt
c55911a45bc60d875b2366b59732ce27
48f6763292d96826ea1181e5db7e702f9c013c0c
113235 F20110331_AACVAA santos_s_Page_017.jpg
6972119a391b6df5f1492b9b9008923e
37b9ce018dae92e2a939891a347d57cd3e31aeb9
49136 F20110331_AACUUH santos_s_Page_008.pro
38f2f33f6ce375fa77070b0b2fb2fbd3
de5339705a6cb2e992d29ef311ade1d48c7d22ca
1465 F20110331_AACUTS santos_s_Page_133.txt
8ab37b712ced586a08ef54ed17d4f8f8
d4a6a55424c128b207af769b2e3a4641ba7d812c
106941 F20110331_AACVAB santos_s_Page_018.jpg
3f672074f062c3f9a929e7d9241d2a8f
f5a3c6551bffcbc79864e6c08d2444060c768605
1086 F20110331_AACUTT santos_s_Page_134.txt
9fd8f582a2dd01b12bf7002017924b4d
aaa6800801fb8319b185ee0ebf2dfc580f0d21a5
108929 F20110331_AACVAC santos_s_Page_019.jpg
7024c7a773619a2503efddf2b08bf422
02be1dd969028734850313736863dd61a211fd7e
6582 F20110331_AACUUI santos_s_Page_009.pro
98dd46bdb39b6092403f40af59a399da
1bd971f7fbd97cfe3a932ec29df0961d404904fe
2035 F20110331_AACUTU santos_s_Page_135.txt
84a6dd70581a3a1ba8e2558d9699d1fb
c3141121c872cc01d817cb9483cf82005877f143
113430 F20110331_AACVAD santos_s_Page_020.jpg
f0e751e856cd2fd80b24b079791cb396
3ff689066ce1a623d4ae3b87d6c9b9f6c884ad63
51402 F20110331_AACUUJ santos_s_Page_010.pro
52b87640e897c02d637361ccee710652
71c60c6d56e5d585315d54ccc2c592213ddbd182
2480 F20110331_AACUTV santos_s_Page_136.txt
9774b6722ac8681a2899bc2ddc19a70b
a3d14cfd4158b27de1c36c87f5ebf892d703ac1c
110712 F20110331_AACVAE santos_s_Page_021.jpg
9e699194a511e08e356b84a1a05d99d4
f8508b88e64697eb1b6f375ebe1a5a0159b579ed
57228 F20110331_AACUUK santos_s_Page_011.pro
4716e276a43477f248b38d72de6ab94f
741694ca964a367aa330dff869f40796abc4e83f
2214 F20110331_AACUTW santos_s_Page_137.txt
8e349bb62c99fd796ed71959a60edaa6
39bb5231c8666ecfe7adab96cda9885a160ecbf5
113045 F20110331_AACVAF santos_s_Page_022.jpg
e8ba8a7902912e55d44c7dc6e579840f
0552d9c428d633c8be74b109da8e68ab44e6cbd5
53919 F20110331_AACUVA santos_s_Page_027.pro
a6fc26c650e3631568573ffc00f51cc8
0982bff74204f71a6c9e602d124ccaf433eb9069
53859 F20110331_AACUUL santos_s_Page_012.pro
74012d733bcd2dd4984bf3096db96918
b4bb2dd3f08cfa09983231bb20a3d3321a94bc23
2208 F20110331_AACUTX santos_s_Page_138.txt
a26341e11024a81011ef2783acab2585
ffa4bb268972dff1aa882b962247fc91643997d2
110391 F20110331_AACVAG santos_s_Page_023.jpg
1d1bf655295b972b6d69c7065c383954
07174c8a81c89dbe6faa01cb585825f00a29cb33
52829 F20110331_AACUVB santos_s_Page_028.pro
cbe4c362c2acf12e3147455755059ed1
47049fd471bfd758ed5ec3b08154094312aea896
55830 F20110331_AACUUM santos_s_Page_013.pro
82f0ff6ab01e7a1b4154796e5aee8636
60d1219b0b58b0935bc9905fd7112ada3c00c9d5
483 F20110331_AACUTY santos_s_Page_139.txt
38def8924ef2e5f7e71192fc59d42b32
c96dcd066777407a7c97f2561daa7319a264e287
77735 F20110331_AACVAH santos_s_Page_024.jpg
ab0444e10e320993bb8a82c97d38c89e
eabca45b77e6292d2b043270da1c6f0b24c34fe0
49776 F20110331_AACUVC santos_s_Page_029.pro
eec317cd751960754f893647efc2591a
f12615cb3ac2019b6653ecfe487488fa1546027c
55810 F20110331_AACUUN santos_s_Page_014.pro
3a8d79581294c41dbad62058f5f12c33
78d5bb1e989b0ffd419a19bb9caa69cbbd7823d6
484 F20110331_AACUTZ santos_s_Page_140.txt
526bf143a03597af91a129348e7fdd50
a28a83a55d3819a9bd6221b5a4d7ccd7ab723f25
99042 F20110331_AACVAI santos_s_Page_025.jpg
6548156a6cd56891990565ce338743bb
3dbc090d2d578133dc28b4a007706d9918755c50
44745 F20110331_AACUVD santos_s_Page_030.pro
b39614e30c6ad50e4d6043adc6db3b93
5e0144fa6c5b25a79a2427693f25186c5786b126
54050 F20110331_AACUUO santos_s_Page_015.pro
3e9c0b04b6201591c8b2a97776274fa1
828993902150a8e824f7ed50b34c55a3555a7422
47712 F20110331_AACVAJ santos_s_Page_026.jpg
5ef53d27a408910f1531c8038d761abe
6eabc807fc013c03e9215fa3d3bfa1c29cc79f32
57048 F20110331_AACUVE santos_s_Page_031.pro
774a7fc4a92d2e412a89b5b6134e8d75
ee41c1b91030cd744988e98eeacede257e1b9977
54596 F20110331_AACUUP santos_s_Page_016.pro
f2baed17cd4c05034b22cbd4806cf83c
2743d81c54c39e1ec60f4dd486c281e0245f0a2a
108141 F20110331_AACVAK santos_s_Page_027.jpg
b24a81b2883d335fdd4714d8b5fb6062
45f68d5226a82ce7270a2d9739d40d5cb3cda8a7
57697 F20110331_AACUVF santos_s_Page_032.pro
717e8dcf12c2f4877e712a3d43c5daa3
be8e5ef1abc47b143eaf66d6fbad4c4f1c9f1863
56822 F20110331_AACUUQ santos_s_Page_017.pro
1f4992a476e6dc0067dabcac24938536
8ea209c983f0b4a12925ca849e290617e993a518
107911 F20110331_AACVAL santos_s_Page_028.jpg
e294bb67d5c38bd2684137eaa000953f
15556ceb4dbb71ac64c5da00b59b87d2597c984f
56978 F20110331_AACUVG santos_s_Page_033.pro
691049d7eba10d10e905af87b1fedfce
8414e5bffd608821dc329f52dd30eaa20f55eb57
53926 F20110331_AACUUR santos_s_Page_018.pro
410e50e57cad4c836b3081a888511798
93bf2325908aa731df4fe38a065cd3b7bb1402e6
121915 F20110331_AACVBA santos_s_Page_043.jpg
318677277071b496c4a94a1eed392e74
3e3e2d4c3f46102e6495181cb7e7e330137146b1
42857 F20110331_AACVAM santos_s_Page_029.jpg
1d6f7f6dfdee127e21322fd6e3a989da
e0575490fc2ffc28ccf78aed98e13b4fe3cef060
55347 F20110331_AACUVH santos_s_Page_034.pro
47a9163eaa63d047552e1617fcce0adf
0d88ce25a5a522fc820618bb5551f6f5638c902d
54287 F20110331_AACUUS santos_s_Page_019.pro
e5b24b099905a407720ff54807f3570e
6c1742968618eab2cbac677917cf4d67825c52f3
99520 F20110331_AACVBB santos_s_Page_044.jpg
bd7208ab48c18a075cf67595ee6f118c
46d4ef6c50fddc33820fa4e381d83b2fde7d9420
39525 F20110331_AACVAN santos_s_Page_030.jpg
71fb482babb2111dc50f12347d2ac017
0add300d1f93b1b76658118d6bf37f82974479e4
56374 F20110331_AACUVI santos_s_Page_035.pro
448882c08f1d54be307d828b1733b6f7
b3e58623acd51afb001667c328f0190dc5e03349
59968 F20110331_AACUUT santos_s_Page_020.pro
538ebddb8459f7cb2d4a91ee1aa5394d
030dc701b255e350ba50e32332ac3e842b95ba20
109615 F20110331_AACVBC santos_s_Page_045.jpg
d509a54edc4593eb58e2bfe183311104
e21511578b4c7e84f08d80dae248cf1e5eb4e78b
113865 F20110331_AACVAO santos_s_Page_031.jpg
62b852c22c76356c7c7f607ad4d46d85
5b349578d880ddff0f86879cd5aca3b8b9cf3050
55910 F20110331_AACUUU santos_s_Page_021.pro
789b24caea781a321289b338ebb08735
7f4a4d92280e897d8f9f2947131a5aa4949d9004
102509 F20110331_AACVBD santos_s_Page_046.jpg
8914d19d33e5fa7845468ed984aade11
92398809b8a1673440b971ae9f7e6c8d5e0d6570
114683 F20110331_AACVAP santos_s_Page_032.jpg
7b50818031c25f4d729b354aac82f628
1f538aaf072353291e885b37068d2ddca9013381
55033 F20110331_AACUVJ santos_s_Page_036.pro
6fd260faa69e78a15185f20798c3359c
0875ecfe2b7947cbf455889decef6f8dc91563bd
56787 F20110331_AACUUV santos_s_Page_022.pro
1ca9d03af3e47287bea283870f283aef
aafc99a433f7c8a243fa737d4609908fe7a766f6
104936 F20110331_AACVBE santos_s_Page_047.jpg
298954a4d31eeb3e1a00f6dc4afa64af
10409f9ec37b820f8450dfa9208eb3d36e32013b
115528 F20110331_AACVAQ santos_s_Page_033.jpg
aa9917ee1bb02244030e4d6e29b3e43e
83143720fc3135be17becce3c89e5bedcf35bc94







EX-INMATES' PERSPECTIVES ON INFORMAL METHODS OF CONTROL UTILIZED BY
CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS























By

SASKIA DANIELE SANTOS


A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF ARTS

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2007

































2007 Saskia Daniele Santos
































To my brother, Alex









ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I thank the members of this thesis committee: Dr. Jodi Lane, Dr. Angela R. Gover, and Dr.

Lonn Lanza-Kaduce. I was incredibly lucky to have a committee comprised of truly exceptional

people, who offered endless amounts of support and guidance. I especially thank my mentor and

thesis chair, Dr Jodi Lane. This project would not have been possible without Dr. Lane's effort,

time and willingness to direct this thesis.

I owe many thanks to both of my parents for their constant love and encouragement and I

am indebted to Robert French for always reminding me it was possible.









TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S ..............................................................................................................4

LIST OF TA BLES .............. ......... ....................................................... 7

ABSTRAC T .........................................................................................

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION ............... .............................. ............................. 10

2 L ITE R A TU R E R E V IE W ......................................................................... ........................ 12

The Prison Experience and Staff ........................................ ........... .................................. 12
Interaction Type O ne: Exerting Control................................... ..................................... 13
Interaction Type Two: Gaining Privileges and Possessions .........................................14
C au ses for the Interaction s ...................................................................... ..................15
O officers' view s of inm ates ....................................................................... .......... 15
Inm ates' view s of correctional officers ............... ...... .. ................................... 17
Methods of Control .........................................................................................19
Formal Methods of Social Control ........................................................ ...............19
Inform al M ethods of Social C ontrol...................................................................... ......20
M ethod Effectiveness ...................... ...................... ... ......... .... ....... 22
S u m m ary ....................................24.............................

3 STUDY METHODS ................ .................. ........................ 25

Study Location................................................... .........25
S a m p le ............................................................................2 7
T total Sam ple ................................................... 28
Prison Participants ................................................................ ............. 31
Jail-o n ly P articip an ts ................................................................................................. 3 2
F ocus G group P participants ............................................................34
D ata C o lle ctio n ................................................................................................................. 3 5
F ocu s G rou p s......................................................36
S u rv e y s .................................................................................4 0
M e a su re s ................................ .................................................................................................4 1
F o cu s G rou p Q u estion s ............................................................................................. 4 1
S u rv ey .................42..............................................
P participant Protection .............................................44.............................
V a riab le s .................. .......... .... .................................................................................................4 4
D ep en d en t V ariab les ................................................................................................. 4 4
Independent V ariables .................................................................52
Analysis ........................................ 53
S u m m ary ....................................54.............................










4 R E SU L T S ....................................................... 56

Research Question 1: Experience with Correctional Officers..............................................56
Frequencies: Correctional Officer and Inmate Interactions Scales ...............................56
Frequencies: Correctional Officers' Traits Scales.............................. .......... .....62
Focus Group Data: Experience with Correctional Officers .........................................66
Correlations and Regressions: Correctional Officer and Inmate Interactions.................69
Correlations and Regressions: Correctional Officers' Traits ........................................69
Research Question 2: Methods of Informal Social Control............................................75
Frequencies: Methods of Informal Social Control Scales............... ....... ..........76
Frequencies: Methods of Informal Social Control on Others Scales ..............................81
Frequencies: Perceived Effectiveness of Informal Methods of Social Control ..............86
Focus Group Data: Methods of Informal Social Control ......... .................................91
Correlations and Regressions: Methods of Informal Social Control.............................92
Correlations and Regressions: Methods of Informal Social Control on Others............97
Correlations and Regressions: Perceived Effectiveness of Informal Methods of
Social Control .................................................101
Summary ...................................... ................... ................106

5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................... 107

Summary of Findings .................................... .......... .... 107
Study Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research.................................................115
Policy Im plications ................ ...................... ................................ ............... 120
Sum m ary ............... .............................................. ......... 121

APPENDIX

A SURVEY .................................................123

B FOCUS GROUP QUESTIONS.................................................. 135

LIST OF REFERENCES ..................................................................... ........ 136

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................................................... ........... 140









LIST OF TABLES


Table page

3-1 P participants by L locations ............................ ............................................................. 26

3-2 Sam ple C haracteristics............................................................................. ....................29

3-3 Types of Groups H eld ............................... .... ........... ......... ..... 38

3-4 F ocu s G roup Q uestions........................................................................... .....................39

4-1 Inmate and Correctional Officer Interactions ...................................................... 57

4-2 C correctional O officer T raits........................................................................ ...................63

4-3 Correlations of Inmate and Correctional Officer Interactions ........................ ..........70

4-4 Correlations of Correctional Officer Traits.................................. ........................ 72

4-5 Predicting Correctional Officer Interactions and Traits............................................73

4-6 Informal M ethods of Social Control ............................................................................ 77

4-7 Informal Methods of Social Control on Other Inmates ............................................. 82

4-8 Perceived Effectiveness of Informal Methods of Social Control .................. ...............87

4-9 Correlations of Informal Methods of Social Control .....................................................93

4-10 Predicting Informal M ethods of Social Control............................................................. 95

4-11 Correlations of Informal Methods of Social Control for Others.................... .......... 98

4-12 Predicting the Reported Witnessing Informal Methods of Social Control......................100

4-13 Correlations of Perceived Effectiveness of Informal Methods of Social Control ..........102

4-14 Predicting Perceived Effectiveness of Informal Methods of Social Control................. 104









Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts

EX-INMATES' PERSPECTIVES ON INFORMAL METHODS OF CONTROL UTILIZED BY
CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS

By

Saskia Daniele Santos

December 2007

Chair: Jodi Lane
Major: Criminology, Law and Society

Within every prison in the United States there are more inmates than officers; yet

correctional officers are required to maintain control. They utilize several methods, formal and

informal, to control inmates. Research into informal social control methods utilized by

correctional officers has been scarce but has indicated these methods are essential for prisons to

operate efficiently. This study examined, from the perspectives of 106 former inmates, nine

methods of informal social control as well as the context in which they occur, such as inmate and

correctional officers' interactions. Participants responded to questions measuring perceptions of

inmate and correctional officers' interaction and correctional officers' traits, perceived

frequencies of use of informal social control methods and effectiveness, as well as questions

measuring demographic and personal information. Fifty participants also took part in focus

groups. Frequencies were run to examine participants' agreement with survey items and linear

regression models were also estimated to identify possible predictors of agreement with survey

items. Some of the participants viewed interactions with correctional officers as negative

experiences and described correctional officers using negative traits, and even fewer viewed the

interactions and traits held by correctional officers as positive. A limited number of the

participants indicated that correctional officers use methods of informal social control to punish









or control inmates, and from their perspective all the methods included in the study were viewed

as being effective in controlling inmates to some extent. Also, recommendations for future

research and possible policy recommendation are made.









CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Sykes referred to prison as a society within a society (Sykes, 1958). Prisons have their own

norms and values for those who live and work within them. The inner workings of a prison are

not usually deemed to be a strange and uncharted area of research. Many works of literature as

well as a number of research projects have examined the American prison system and its many

facets. However, when it comes to examining the methods correctional officers utilize in order to

control inmates, little has been done in examining informal social control methods. Correctional

officers hold most discretionary authority in granting rewards and inflicting punishments, leaving

the inmates little opportunity to ignore correctional officers' demands for conformity and

discipline (Hepburn, 1985; Sykes, 1958). Correctional officers utilize two methods of control:

formal and informal (Fisher-Giorlando & Jiang, 2000; Marquart, 1986). Formal methods leave

an official record of the action taken by the officer, while informal methods do not leave a record

(Fisher-Giorlando & Jiang, 2000). This study hopes to examine informal methods of control

utilized by correctional officers.

The past several decades have seen a rise in prison populations. In 2005 there were

2,193,798 inmates housed in prisons or jails in the United States alone (Bureau of Justice

Statistics, 2007). This was a 2.7% increase from the end of 2004. Though the annual growth

from 2004 to 2005 is less than the average growth rate of 3.3%, it still means that for every

100,000 U.S. residents there are approximately 491 prison inmates (Austin, Bruce, Carroll,

McCall & Richards, 2001; Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2007). As the prison population continues

to grow, the need for examination of the prison system also continues to grow. Researchers have

found that experiences during prison affect an individual's actions and behaviors upon release.









With so many individuals being incarcerated, the importance of this research is pronounced,

since most of the individuals currently incarcerated will eventually be released back into society.

This study hopes to examine what types of informal social control methods are utilized by

correctional officers and the impact of those methods. However, in order to fully examine

informal social control methods an additional research question was added. The author felt that it

was important to place informal social control methods and their use in context. This will be

accomplished by examining the prison experience of former inmates and their interactions with

correctional officers and the treatment they received from officers.

The research questions for the study are:

* What was the prison experience like for former inmates regarding correctional officers and
what were their interactions with correctional officers like?

* What methods of informal control did officers use to control inmates and what was their
impact as experienced by former inmates?

This study hopes to contribute to the current literature by first adding to the sparse

literature regarding informal social control. This study will be an intensive examination into

informal social control, examining nine possible methods of social control utilized by

correctional officers. The second contribution this study hopes to add to the literature is

examining the impact of social control methods. Both formal and informal methods are utilized

within prisons, but there has been limited research done on the impact of these methods. This

study will allow for the impact of informal social control to be explained by measuring former

inmates' perceptions of method effectiveness. The third and final contribution to the literature is

that this study will make policy suggestions. The literature regarding the examination of social

control methods appears to contain little to no policy implications. This study hopes to be able to

suggest policy by being able to share which, if any, methods of informal social control are

effective, taken from a former inmates' perspective.









CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

Social control within prisons has been a research topic for several decades, but most of the

literature is comprised of studies focusing on formal social control (Marquart, 1986). The

literature regarding informal social control methods is sparse. So, to fully understand it and its

use, one will have to examine the circumstances and situations surrounding informal methods of

control. First, this study examines the literature relating to inmates' experiences with staff by

looking at what types of interactions are most common between correctional officers and

inmates. This literature review also examines the causes of the interactions. Once the prison

experience regarding prison staff is discussed, informal social control methods are more clearly

defined and possible reasons for their effectiveness are then examined.

The Prison Experience and Staff

The first purpose of this study is to gain a better understanding of the prison experience for

an inmate when it comes to prison staff1. In order to do so, one must realize that prisons are a

place of, "deadening routine punctuated by bursts of fear and violence (Morris, 1995, pp. 202)."

The daily life of an inmate is routine and rarely changes. Part of this daily routine involves

interactions with officers. Depending on the facility, contact with officers will vary from

frequent to very rare (Fisher-Giorlando & Jiang 2000; Grusky, 1959). Correctional officers and

inmate interactions are bound by the prison environment in that they mainly evolve as a function

of the prison itself, such as control and discipline (Poole & Regoli, 1980b; Senese, 1991). One of

those functions of prison is that authorities are given almost ultimate power (Cressey, 1959;

Morris 1995; Poole & Regoli, 1980b; Terry, 2004). They hold power over almost every aspect of

the inmate's life (Sykes, 1958). This is believed to be necessary for the safety of society


1 Correctional officer and staff are used interchangeably throughout this manuscript.









(Hepburn, 1985). Prison authorities dictate when inmates will do things such as eat, shower, go

to the bathroom, have access to the recreation2 yard, talk on the phone, and even visit with

family. They also dictate where inmates will live and work, or even if an inmate will have a work

assignment. But people or agencies that have complete power over others often use every

opportunity to remind their subordinates that they possess nearly unlimited power and control

over them (Toch, 1992). They do this especially in instances that are trivial or petty (Terry, 2004;

Toch, 1992). Nowhere is this truer than in prisons.

Interaction Type One: Exerting Control

Interactions between correctional officers and inmates are often based on officers exerting

their seemingly unlimited power and control over inmates (Brown, DuPont, Kozel & Spevacek,

1971; Zald, 1962). Inmates feel that correctional officers may use any and every opportunity to

remind them that they are in complete control. Perhaps the best example of officers utilizing

ultimate control over inmates is through the enforcement of minor rules. These rules tend to

intrude into the ordinary practices and routines of an inmate's life and originate from an

authority greater than a dorm correctional officer, such as the Florida Legislature (Hepburn &

Albonetti, 1980; Irwin, 2005). Typically inmates find them to be frustrating because it is difficult

to know all the rules and to be able to comply with all of them (Irwin, 2005).

Policies or rules that are unclear are likely to cause a decrease in compliance because

individuals may be unclear as to what is and is not acceptable behavior (Mayer, 2001). The lack

of compliance, precipitated by unclear rules, is likely to cause an increase in the use of more

punitive sanctions (Mayer, 2001). So, petty rules may in fact contribute to noncompliance by

inmates. Officers might be caught in a cycle where they must decide to enforce rules that could

2 Recreation yard will be termed rec yard for the rest of the report, since this is the terminology typically used within
prisons.









contribute to more conflict and a lack of compliance. They may be trying to suppress the very

activity that prison policies and rules helped to create (Skyes, 1958). The interactions

surrounding these rules are viewed as antagonistic since the inmate is viewed as noncompliant by

the officer while the officer is viewed as petty by the inmate. The inmate may view him or

herself as a victim being picked on by a correctional officer enforcing petty rules. This may be

especially true since correctional officers' enforcement of these rules tends to be inconsistent and

arbitrary (Irwin, 2005). Officers often address the inmates in a manner that is perceived as

disrespectful (Irwin, 2005). This may lead the inmate to participate in frequent disputes or

confrontations with correctional officers (Toch, 1992). The officer, on the other hand, may then

use the inmate's behavior as justification for further repressive measures, including the way the

officer addresses the inmate, gives the inmate orders or responds to the inmate's requests (Irwin,

2005; Sykes, 1958). Also in the interactions between the two sides, officers may also try to

demean inmates and the cycle of antagonism is continued due to both sides (Irwin, 2005;

Weinberg, 1942).

This is not to say that all officers participate in such behaviors or that all interactions with

officers are unpleasant. Some officers will enforce rules but do not bother to enforce the petty

ones (Hewitt, Poole & Regoli, 1984; Irwin, 2005; Marquart, 1986). These same officers also tend

to be consistent in their enforcement of the rules, and consistent in their lack of petty rule

enforcement (Irwin, 2005). It is important to note also that not all officers speak to inmates in a

disrespectful and demeaning manner. However, many do, which causes this type of interaction to

be a common experience for inmates.

Interaction Type Two: Gaining Privileges and Possessions

Another interaction that occurs between inmates and officers is one that is typically

instigated by inmates. Many inmates may interact with officers in order to increase their









privileges or material possessions (Irwin, 2005; Sykes, 1956; Weinberg, 1942). Correctional

officers hold nearly all the power within the prison walls, which also includes privileges and

possessions. For example, correctional officers can determine whether a particular inmate

receives a bunk under a fan or one that receives no air circulation. They have the ability to allow

an inmate to work in the shade or work in the hot sun. Realizing that the officers have nearly

complete control over their lives, inmates may interact with an officer in order to increase their

comfort of living. They may interact with the officer in ways that will win them favor or try to

convey to the officer that they are not going to be a problem for that officer (Sykes, 1956). These

types of interactions may be viewed by the officers as manipulative.

Causes for the Interactions

Research shows that the interactions between inmates and correctional officers can mainly

be classified as unpleasant and punctuated by distrust (Hemmens & Marquart, 2000; Toch,

1978). Interactions are typically in regard to rules and regulations that are considered to be petty

by inmates. The biggest contributor to these interactions between correctional officers and

inmates appears to be the views and opinions held by each. If an individual holds a negative view

of a group, every interaction he or she will have with that group will be influenced by those

negative views (Grusky, 1959). For example, if an individual is suspicious of a particular ethnic

group, every interaction he or she has with a person of that ethnic group will be viewed with

suspicion. In the case of correctional officers and inmates, both groups have preconceived

notions of the opposite group, which tend to be unfavorable and marked by suspicion (Grusky,

1959; Toch, 1978).

Officers' views of inmates

Correctional officers have a shared culture (Crouch & Alpert, 1980; Irwin, 2005). This

culture is mainly comprised of common attitudes and beliefs, which include a shared derogatory









attitude towards inmates. Inmates are usually viewed as being worthless, untrustworthy,

manipulative, aggressive and disrespectful (Brown et al., 1971; Irwin, 2005). If inmates are

constantly attempting to increase their privileges and material possessions through their

interactions with correctional officers, the officers may begin to view all interactions with

inmates as attempts to manipulate them (Sykes, 1956). Correctional officers also typically see

inmates as vicious, cons, and "criminal scum" (Ross & Richards, 2002, pp. 47; Terry, 2004;

Weinberg, 1942). The majority of officers do not empathize with inmates, and hold little respect

for them as credible and decent human beings (Hazelrigg, 1967; Irwin, 2005). Of course, officers

may see individual inmates as having different, more favorable characteristics, but they tend to

most often view inmates unfavorably. There is some evidence that certain personal

characteristics such as race and ethnicity may impact an officer's attitude toward inmates, but

other charactertics like gender and level of education will not (Jurik, 1985).

The views held by correctional officers are believed to be developed during the orientation

or training process. Staff is trained to mistrust and remain socially distant from inmates perhaps

as a method to prevent staff from having inappropriate relationships or arrangements with

inmates (Hepburn & Albonetti, 1980; Irwin, 2005). Also, if inmates are trying to obtain material

possessions or privileges through their interactions with correctional officers, administrators may

want correctional officers to view all interactions with suspicion and distrust. Jurik and Musheno

(1986) found that correctional officers reported that they were penalized by senior officers if they

tried adapting a service orientation, which would be more favorable towards inmates. Prison

administrators appear to have a vested interest in maintaining an "us versus them" mentality

among officers. So as new correctional officers become indoctrinated into the informal officer









culture, they begin to distrust and hate inmates (Irwin, 2005). This unfavorable view of inmates

influences how correctional officers interact with inmates.

Inmates' views of correctional officers

As is true for correctional officers, inmates' interactions with correctional officers are often

guided by their opinions of officers as well. However, the inmates' perceptions of inmate-staff

interactions and opinions of staff have been understudied in comparison to the correctional

officers' perception of interactions and opinions (Hemmens & Marquart, 2000). Taken from

what has been examined, it is believed that when inmates evaluate officers, they base their

opinions on four characteristics: fairness, consistency, stringency and empathy (Irwin, 2005).

Fairness is deemed the most important characteristic, and involves enforcement of the rules

(Irwin, 2005). Naturally officers who tend to not enforce rules, which could be deemed petty, are

seen as fair. The characteristic of consistency is evaluated by whether the officer maintains the

same rule enforcement every day (Irwin, 2005). Officers who change their level of enforcement

would be viewed as inconsistent, which is not favorable (Hepburn, 1985). Stringency refers to

the level of supervision an officer utilizes (Irwin, 2005). Officers who are more lax in their

supervision will be held in higher regard than those who take an active stance in supervision. The

final characteristic that correctional officers are evaluated on is empathy. This is evaluated by

whether the officer treats inmates with respect, which is measured by how they refer to inmates,

give them orders and respond to inmates' requests (Irwin, 2005). If inmates view an officer as

being fair, consistent, non-stringent and empathic, they would probably believe most of their

interactions with that officer to be favorable.

However, inmates often hold less than favorable views of correctional officers (Ross &

Richards, 2002; Weinberg, 1942). They see officers as authoritarian and stupid (Ross &

Richards, 2002). Most inmates hate correctional officers and view the officers as "hated soldiers









guarding prisoners of a foreign army" (Irwin, 2005; Ross & Richards, 2002, pp.47). In

classifying correctional officers, the most common category is "chicken shit" assholes (Irwin,

2005, pp. 68). Through the routines and experiences inmates endure while in prison, their sense

of punishment increases (Irwin, 1970). With correctional officers holding the power over the

inmate that leads to those experiences and daily routines, the inmate soon despises them for

having so much control.

Often, an officer is automatically hated by inmates. As an inmate becomes more familiar

with an officer it is possible he or she may begin to hold favorable views towards that officer

(Hemmens & Marquart, 2000; Hepburn, 1985; Irwin, 2005). There is also evidence indicating

that age of the inmate is closely related to the perception of staff and interactions with staff, with

younger inmates reporting having more difficulty with staff in comparison to older inmates

(Hemmens & Marquart, 2000). The officer could begin to gain respect after showing inmates

that they possess the qualities previously discussed: fairness, consistency, non-stringent and

empathy (Irwin, 2005). Another way officers can be viewed favorably by inmates is if they form

some sort of special or illegal arrangement with inmates (Irwin, 2005; Weinberg, 1942). If an

officer provides an inmate with items or privileges that violate rules and regulations, the officer

may become liked.

Interactions between the two groups can be frequent. They typically involve the officer

enforcing rules and regulations that are considered petty, or involve inmates trying to obtain

privileges or possessions from officers. Each group generally holds a less than favorable view of

the other, which is exacerbated by these two types of interactions. Officers distrust inmates due

to their attempts to manipulate staff in order to obtain sought after items or services; inmates

despise officers for using their unlimited power to enforce trivial rules. Though there are always









exceptions, most inmates' prison experiences are unpleasant when it comes to officer

interactions and their treatment by correctional officers.

Methods of Control

The second purpose of this paper is to examine the informal social control methods utilized

by correctional officers and to assess possible reasons for their impact on inmates. As stated

previously, correctional officers have almost complete power over inmates and often use every

opportunity to remind inmates that they possess nearly unlimited power and control (Toch,

1992). They do this by enforcing rules and regulations that may be deemed as trivial or petty by

inmates. Once the officer has defined the inmate's action as a violation of a rule, they have the

discretion as to whether to intervene, and how to discipline inmate if he or she does decide to

intervene (Poole & Regoli, 1980a). The manner in which they may choose to enforce these rules

and regulations could be through formal and informal social control methods (Fisher-Giorlando

& Jiang, 2000; Marquart, 1986; Streets, 1965).

Formal Methods of Social Control

Ross (1901/1969) defined methods of formal social control as sanctions designed to carry

out policy. They are implemented without regard to those who are the objects of control (as cited

in Craddock, 1992). Social methods have also been defined as official reactions by the prison

system concerning the behavior of an inmate (Craddock, 1992; Fisher-Giorlando & Jiang, 2000).

Though official reaction was not defined, for the purposes of this paper official reactions are

measures taken by correctional officers that can be officially tracked, such as the formal

disciplinary procedures (Fisher-Giorlando & Jiang, 2000; Marquart, 1986). In the Florida

Department of Corrections those measures would be disciplinary reports (DRs) and corrective

consultations (CCs). Corrective consultations are the less punitive of the two and do not typically

result in sanctions singularly. They are written reports that indicate the inmate was warned or









corrected regarding his or her behavior. One must receive two or more CCs in order to be

sanctioned, while sanctions are given for only one DR. Disciplinary reports, also known as

incident reports, are more formal reports written by correctional officers in response to a

violation of prison rules (Fisher-Giorlando & Jiang, 2000; Ross & Richards, 2002). The

punishments that one may receive from a disciplinary report can range from loss of 30 days

gaintime3 to 90 days in solitary confinement (Ross & Richards, 2002).

Prison administrators establish formal policies and procedures (Craddock, 1992) such as

methods of enforcing rules and regulations. DRs and CCs are formal procedures used by officers

enforcing prison rules. When an inmate receives a DR or a CC, it is reflected also on his or her

official Department of Corrections' record. Numerous infractions or certain types of infractions

can prohibit individuals from being eligible for good adjustment transfers4, work release and

certain job assignments. The utilization of formal social control methods by an officer will

hardly ever come under scrutiny and are seldom reversed during the formal review process since

it is the officially designated method of controlling inmates. However, formal social control may

not always be utilized due to the time required to fill out paperwork. Also, officers may not deem

the infraction worthy of official reaction, while still believing it requires some response. In some

cases officers may utilize informal social control methods instead.

Informal Methods of Social Control

While formal social control methods are official reactions to an inmate's behavior,

informal social control methods are unofficial reactions to an inmate's behavior. These methods

are not official Department of Corrections' policies and procedures. Since correctional officers

3 Gaintime refers to credit which allows inmates to earn a day or more off the end of their sentence for each day they
served with good behavior (Hoene, 2000). Gaintime has also been referred to as "good time" credit.
4 Good adjustment transfers are when inmates are transferred to an institution they have requested based on their
appropriate behavior at their current institution.









are to maintain order through the enforcement of institutional rules, they have discretion as to

how to enforce them, formally or informally (Poole & Regoli, 1980a). Informal social control

methods are the actions taken by correctional officers in order to discipline or punish inmates

without resorting to official procedures. Informal social control methods tend to be difficult to

monitor, since they do not leave a paper trail as a DR or CC would. They also tend to cover rule

violations that do not draw the attention of others as a major violation would. For example, a

person having a contraband pen would not draw attention from others, such as other inmates or

the officer's superiors that a person having a contraband sweatshirt might. The dorm officer may

feel more inclined to formally sanction the individual with the contraband sweatshirt rather than

the one who had a contraband pen that no one else noticed.

One may be able, through examining the literature regarding another hierarchical

environment like schools, to more clearly understand informal social control methods. When

students misbehave, teachers exercise control over their classroom (Toch, 1992). They can do so

by sending students to the principal, which would be a formal social control method. They can

also choose to control the misbehaving student on their own in an informal manner. This could

include assigning extra homework, having the student stand at the back of the line, or other

similar forms of discipline. The hope of the teacher is to exert his or her control in such a way

the student will behave in the manner the teacher would like.

Prisons have very similar practices. In order for prisons to operate efficiently, correctional

officers cannot respond to every infraction formally (Hewitt et al., 1984; Irwin, 2005; Marquart,

1986; Useem & Reisig, 1999). The process for formal social control methods may be time

consuming and tedious. Correctional officers may tolerate minor inmate infractions, such as

stealing food and gambling and sanction them in a manner that does not require a great deal of









effort (Useem & Reisig, 1999). In cases such as these, officers will utilize other forms of

sanctioning rather than utilizing CCs and DRs. They may have inmates perform tasks that are not

part of their typical job assignment such as picking up cigarette butts. Correctional officers may

also remove certain privileges or access to privileges as a form of control. For instance,

television viewing may be used as a form of informal social control through its allowance or

denial. Access to weight-lifting equipment may also be used in this manner. Methods such as

these may allow officers to refrain from formally sanctioning an inmate, which could result in

loss of gaintime or being sent to confinement. The informal methods may punish inmates

immediately where as formal methods may take a longer period of time. An inmate may not

register right away that he has lost 10 days of gaintime whereas he will notice right away that he

is being told to leave the canteen line and that he are not going to have access to canteen items

for that day. As is true with teachers and students, officers exert their control of inmates by such

informal methods.

Method Effectiveness

The use of informal social control rests on whether or not the techniques have an impact.

Officers rely on the assumption that the techniques they utilize have an impact in some way or

they would not utilize them. The officers might also be working based on the assumption that the

formal forms of punishment they use might not make a difference in the inmate's everyday status

(Sykes, 1958). An inmate may not be affected by formal methods of control since he has enough

time remaining on his sentence that would allow him to still obtain his early release date through

gaintime. Therefore, they may believe that formal methods of control may not be effective in

controlling the inmate. If a person is serving a mandatory sentence, he or she would not receive

gaintime and the loss of gaintime would not impact this person due to he or she being required to

serve the mandatory sentence regardless of gaintime awarded. In order for punishment to be seen









as a true reprimand, the person being punished must see it as such (Sykes, 1958). In the case of

prisons, inmates must feel that the sanction the officer is imposing upon them is punishment. For

the method of control to have an impact, whether it is the promise of rewards or the threat of

punishment, the individual must feel that the rewards are indeed rewards and the punishment is

punishment (Sykes, 1958). An inmate may conform to the orders and demands of officers

because he or she wants to avoid punishment or to receive rewards (Toch, 1992). In addition, the

idea of reward and punishment may vary from person to person.

In prisons today it has been argued that control through the use of rewards and

punishments is defective since the reward side has been largely stripped away (Sykes, 1958).

However, it can also be argued that since inmates receive fewer rewards or privileges, that these

few things may be more valuable to them as rewards. The fear of losing such items through

correctional officers' removal may be a very effective method of control. The threat of the

removal of those few pleasures or items is a powerful motivation to conform to prison rules and

regulations (Sykes, 1958).

The items that inmates see as privileges include any increased sense of freedom. Pleasure

items include access to a library, whether it is a regular library or a law library, educational unit,

weight-lifting area, rec yard so one can go walking or jogging, as well as access to a television

(Ross & Richards, 2002; Sykes, 1956). The phone is another privilege that is important to

inmates, because for some the phone is the only method of contact with their families (Ross &

Richards, 2002). Inmates also view the canteen, also known as a commissary, as a privilege and

a place to obtain basic and wanted items. Inmates can purchase stationery, toiletries, clothing and

other such items. Perhaps the most sought after items are the food items, which typically are

generic brands of cookies, crackers, candies, and canned foods, especially fish (i.e. tuna, salmon,









and sardines) (Ross & Richards, 2002). With inmates being in a position of extreme deprivation

the few privileges and luxury items that they are able to have become very valuable to them

(Irwin, 2005).

Informal methods of social control utilized by officers include methods by which officers

will remove privileges and methods that will add tasks or sanctions to inmates. They are likely to

be effective if the inmate perceives the item being removed as a privilege or valuable and the

sanction being imposed as a punishment.

Summary

Inmates' experiences regarding staff and their treatment by staff often are not pleasant

ones. Typical inmate and officer interactions revolve around the enforcement of rules and

regulations, or inmates trying to obtain privileges and material possessions. These interactions

are guided by unfavorable opinions of the opposing side. Correctional officers utilize two forms

of control methods: formal and informal. Informal methods of social control are likely to have an

impact due to the inmates having few rights and privileges (Ross & Richards, 2002). The hope,

in reviewing the literature, was to more fully understand the prison experience regarding

interactions with staff and inmates and the treatment received by inmates from staff. In addition,

the aim was to elaborate the methods of informal social control utilized by correctional officers

and the impact of those methods.









CHAPTER 3
STUDY METHODS

This section describes the methodology this study utilized. First, the author first discusses

the locations where the sample was drawn. Then, the author describes the target sample

population. Next, the author discusses data collection methods, then gives a description of the

measuring instruments: focus group questions and a survey. This is followed by a brief section

on the measures taken to protect participants. Finally, the author describes the variables and data

analysis techniques utilized.

Study Location

Participants were recruited from half-way houses and transitional programs throughout

North Central Florida (See Table 3-1). The halfway houses and transitional programs were

identified by obtaining their names on the World Wide Web or through recommendations from

individuals currently working within the criminal justice system. Half-way houses and

transitional programs were contacted by phone, and the researcher asked to speak with the

director or manager of the half-way house or transitional program. The researcher then described

the research project and asked if the director was willing to allow the researcher access to the

residents of the half-way house or transitional program. The researcher typically faxed a copy of

the informed consent and a description of the study procedures, including a statement that half-

way house or transitional program staff members could not be present during the focus group or

survey administration. Some directors or managers did not require or request a copy, and in those

cases, the researcher indicated the policy and procedures during the phone conversation.

The half-way houses and transitional programs can be separated into two categories: faith-

based and non-faith-based. Nine of the groups were conducted in faith-based half-way












Table 3-1. Participants by Locations
Focus Group City Location Number of Age Range Racial Distribution
People (years) Black White Other


1. House of Hope

2. Salvation Army:
Red Shield
Lodge
3. Prisoners of
Christ
4. Prisoners of
Christ

a 5. Salvation Army:
Red Shield
Lodge
6. Prisoners of
Christ
7. THORM Inc
Ministries

8. Center of Hope

9. Pinellas
Ex-Offender Re-
entry Coalition
10. Salvation Army:
Red Shield


Gainesville

Jacksonville


Jacksonville

Jacksonville


Jacksonville


Jacksonville

Jacksonville


Clearwater

Clearwater


Jacksonville


Living room of half-
way house
Room next to kitchen
in the Salvation
Army building
Room of local church

Kitchen of half-way
house's business
office
Room of Salvation
Army building

Room of local church

Living room of half-
way house

Group room of half-
way house
Hallway of Pinellas
Criminal Courthouse

Room of Salvation
Army building


Lodge
* Missing survey from one participant in this group


4 Males

9 Males


12 Males

5 Males*


7 Males


6 Males

5 Males


3 Males

49 Males


7 Males


32- 46

38- 56


30- 62

38- 67


31-59


30-58

31-45


45-57

18-49


38-46









houses or transitional programs. The only group that can be classified as non-faith-based was

Group 9, which was a county run re-entry program. All the half-way houses or transitional

programs that were faith-based were centered upon the Christian faith. However, there was

much variation in terms of the required level of commitment to the religion on the part of the

individual. For some of the faith-based half-way houses or transitional programs, the residents

were only required to declare that they were spiritual before being granted access to the services.

Other half-way houses or transitional programs required the residents to be interviewed by the

director. He or she then established whether the level of faith in a person was sufficient for the

house.

The type of offenders allowed into the half-way houses or transitional program varied. All

the half-way houses and transitional programs allowed property and drug offenders to utilize the

services. Some also allowed violent offenders to participate, while others allowed both sex

offenders and violent offenders. The structures for the houses where the data were collected vary

from very involved in the former inmates' lives (e.g., helping with job placement, transportation,

obtaining a driver's license) to only providing individuals a place to sleep and eat. Some of the

half-way houses and transitional programs allowed individuals to remain there throughout the

day and emphasized the house as more of a home. One of the houses did not allow residents to

remain in the house during the day and only provided them with a place to sleep and eat

breakfast and dinner.

Sample

The target sample population for this study was male former inmates who had been

incarcerated within the last five years in a correctional or detention facility that currently live in

the State of Florida. The actual sample was comprised of males, who currently reside in the State

of Florida and had been incarcerated in a state or federal prison and individuals who had been









only incarcerated in county jail. The two groups were referred to as "prison participants,"

indicating these individuals had been incarcerated in a prison (N= 70) and "jail-only

participants," which indicted these individuals had only been incarcerated in jail and never in a

state or federal prison (N= 36). There was also a subset group from the total sample, which was

comprised of individuals who participated in both a focus group and survey. It is explained later

as to why not all participants participated in focus groups. The group of individuals who

participated in a focus group was referred to as "focus group participants" (N= 50). All

individuals in this group had been housed in a state or federal correctional or detention facility

within the last five years. The demographics of the total sample are first discussed, proceeded by

the prison participants, jail-only participants, and lastly, the focus group participants (See Table

3-2).

Total Sample

The total sample was comprised of 106 males who were former inmates in either prison or

jail. All participants were older than 18, with the average age of participants being approximately

38 years old. The age range of participants was 18 to 67 years of age. The total sample was

comprised of approximately 49% black (52 individuals), 47% white (49 individuals), and 4%

other (4 individuals). The average school years attended was 11.7. The range was 2 years of

education to 16 years. Most participants indicated receiving a high school diploma or General

Equivalency Diploma (GED). The sample was comprised of people who have been out of prison

as long as 204 months (17 years) and as short as 1 day, with average being approximately 12

months. The average sentence of the sample served was 61 months (5 years and 1 months), with

the shortest sentence having been 3 months and the longest 336 months (28 years). Based on

self-report, almost the entire sample was comprised of individuals who have been housed at a









Table 3-2. Sample Characteristics
Total Sample Prison Participants Jail-only Participants Focus Group Participants
N= 106 Percent N= 70 Percent N= 36 Percent N= 50 Percent
Age
Total Responses 105 99.1 69 98.6 36 100 49 98
Missing Responses 1 .9 1 1.4 0 0 1 2
Average Age 37.9 42.8 28.4 45
Age Range 18 to 67 19 to 67 18 to 46 30 to 67
Median Age 39 43 25.5 45
Mode Age 38 38 20 38

Race
Total Responses 105 99.1 70 100 35 97.2 50 100
Missing Responses 1 .9 0 0 1 2.8 0 0
Black 52 49.5 38 54.3 14 38.9 26 52
White 49 46.6 29 41.4 20 55.6 22 44
Other 4 3.8 3 4.3 1 2.8 2 4

Education
Total Responses 103 97.2 69 98.6 34 94.4 49 98
Missing Responses 3 2.8 1 1.4 2 5.6 1 2
Average (in years) 11.7 11.7 11.7 11.5
Range (in years) 2 to 16 2 to 16 7 to 16 2 to 16
Median (in years) 12 12 12 12
Mode (in years) 12 12 12 12

Time Since Release
Total Responses 103 97.2 70 100 33 91.7 50 100
Missing Responses 3 2.8 0 0 3 8.3 0 0
Average (in months) 11.7 14.7 5.4 .5.3
Range (in months) .0 to 204 .0 to 204 .5 to 36 .0 to 60
Median (in months) 3 2 3 2
Mode (in months) 1 1 3 1









Table 3-2. Continued
Total Sample Prison Participants Jail-only Participants Focus Group Participants
N= 106 Percent N= 70 Percent N= 36 Percent N= 50 Percent
Length of Sentence Served
Total Responses 103 97.2 70 100 33 91.7 50 100
Missing Responses 3 2.8 0 0 3 8.3 0 0
Average (in months) 61.0 87.1 5.8 95.4
Range (in months) 3 to 336 5 to 336 3 to 10 5 to 336
Median (in months) 30 48.3 6 57.5
Mode (in months) 5 36 5 60

States Incarcerated
Total Responses 106 100 70 100 36 100 50 100
Missing Responses 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Florida Only 99 93.4 69 98.6 36 100 46 92
Florida & 1 Additional State 4 3.8 4 5.7 0 0 3 6
w Florida & 2 Additional States 2 1.9 2 2.9 0 0 0 0
Another State Only 1 .9 1 1.4 0 0 1 2

Most Serious Offense
Total Responses 105 99.1 69 98.6 36 100 49 98
Missing Responses 1 .9 1 1.4 0 0 1 2
Drug 26 24.5 14 20 12 33.3 8 16
Property 32 30.2 26 37.1 6 16.7 19 38
Violent 26 24.5 19 27.1 7 19.4 14 28
Violator of Probation 13 12.3 6 8.6 7 19.4 4 8
Other 8 7.3 4 5.7 4 11.1 4 8









correctional or detention center in the State of Florida at some point and time, with only one

participant who had not. Four participants had served a prison sentence in an additional state to

Florida, while two participants had served a prison sentence in two additional states to Florida.

The total sample was comprised of approximately 24% drug offenders (26 individuals), 30%

property offenders (32 individuals), 24% violent offenders (26 individuals), 12% violators of

probation or parole (13 individuals), and 7% other types of offenders (8 individuals).

Prison Participants

Data were collected from 70 former inmates1, all of whom were male. Prison participants

were all older than 18, with the average age of the prison participant being approximately 43

years old. The age range of participants was 19 to 67 years of age. The prison participants

sample was comprised of approximately 55% black (38 individuals), 41% white (29 individuals),

and 4% other (3 individuals), which happen to be all be Hispanic. The average school years

attended was 11.7. The range was 2 years of educations (2nd grade) to 16 years (receiving a

Bachelor's degree). As with the total sample, most prison participants indicated having received

a high school diploma or GED. Though all those who participated in the study had been released

from a correctional or detention center within the last five years, some individuals had been

released from prison over five years age. For example, an individual may have been released

from prison 15 years age but was released from jail 1 year age. The average time since release

was approximately 15 months prior to participating in the study. However, the sample was

comprised of people who have been out of prison as long as 204 months (17 years) and as short

as 1 day. The average sentence of the prison participants served was 87 months (7 years and 3

months), with the shortest sentence having been 5 months and the longest 336 months (28 years).


1 The total number of former inmates is actually 71, but due to researcher error one of the participant's survey was
destroyed prior to the data being entered.









Almost the entire prison participant sample was comprised of individuals who have been housed

by the Florida Department of Corrections. Only one participant did not serve time in Florida at

all but in West Virginia. Four participants had served a prison sentence in another state in

addition to Florida, while two participants had served a prison sentence in two other states as

well as Florida. The states in which the individuals served an additional sentence or two included

Alabama, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Georgia, Maryland and West Virginia. The sample was

comprised of approximately 20% drug offenders (14 individuals), 37% property offenders (26

individuals), 27% violent offenders (19 individuals), 8% violators of probation or parole (6

individuals), and 6% other types of offenders (4 individuals) (e.g., driving under the influence of

drugs or alcohol, molestation, arson, and gun charges).

The demographics of the prison participants were similar to those of the total sample in age

and education. On average, the prison participant group was comprised of slightly more black

participants, individuals who had been released from prison longer (approximately 3 months

longer), served longer sentences (over two years longer), and committed property offenses.

Jail-only Participants

There were 36 jail-only participants, all of whom had been incarcerated in the same central

Florida county jail. These participants had participated in a re-entry program that began while

they were incarcerated and continued after their release. The program was not open to all jail

inmates. Those in the program were selected based on their offense, criminal history and

willingness to participate. During their time in jail they participated in activities meant to reduce

recidivism and ease re-entry back into society, such as counseling sessions, substance abuse

treatment, job placement training and educational classes. While in jail they were housed in the

same dorm-like wing of the county jail. The jail-only participants were also all older than 18,

with the average age of the jail-only participant being approximately 28 years old. The age range









of the jail-only participant was 18 to 46 years of age. Approximately 39% of the jail-only sample

was black (14 individuals), and 56% was white (20 individuals). Roughly 3% (1 individual) of

the sample was listed as other (i.e., Asian). The average school years attended was 11.7. The

range was 7 years of education (7th grade) to 16 years (receiving Bachelor's Degree). Most jail-

only participants indicated having received a high school diploma or GED. The jail-only

participants of the study were released from jail within the last five years, with the average time

since release being approximately 5 months prior to study participation. The jail-only sample

was comprised of people who have been out of jail as long as 3 years and as short as 2 weeks.

The average sentence of the jail-only sample served was almost 6 months. The shortest sentence

was 3 months and the longest 10 months. Based on self-report survey data, the entire jail-only

sample was comprised of individuals who had only been housed at a Central Florida County Jail.

None of the jail-only participants indicated that they had been incarcerated in another state or

county. The jail-only sample was comprised of approximately 33% drug offenders (12

individuals), 17% property offenders (6 individuals), 19% violent offenders (7 individuals), 19%

violators of probation or parole (7 individuals), and 11% other types of offenders (4 individuals)

(e.g., violating a domestic violence injunction, providing a false ID to a law enforcement officer,

failure to appear at a court event, and possession of firearm).

The demographics of the jail-only participants were only similar to those of the total

sample and the prison participants in education. The jail-only participant group was comprised of

more white participants, individuals who had been released from jail more recently

(approximately 7 months less than total sample, 9 months less that prison participants), served

significantly shorter sentences (4 and half years less than total sample, over 6 years less than

prisons participants). The jail-only group was also more likely to have committed a violation of









probation or another offense, such as violated court orders, and was less likely to have been

convicted of a property or violent offense than the total sample and prison participants. The jail-

only participants were also more likely to have been convicted of a drug offense than prison

participants and the total sample. There were more differences in the jail-only participant sample

in comparison to the total sample, than there were with the prison participant sample and total

sample.

Focus Group Participants

The focus group participants was a subset group of the prison participants. There were 50

focus group participants, all of whom were all older than 18, with the average age being

approximately 45 years old. The age range of the group was 30 to 67 years of age.

Approximately 52% of the focus group sample was black (26 individuals), and 44% was white

(22 individuals). Roughly 4% of the sample was listed as other (2 individuals) (i.e. Hispanic).

The average school years attended was 11.5. The range was 2 years of education (2nd grade) to

16 years (receiving Bachelor's Degree). As the case with the other groups, most focus group

participants indicated they had received a high school diploma or GED. The focus group

participants of the study were released from a detention or correctional facility within the last

five years, with the average time since release approximately 5 months prior to participating in

the study. The focus group sample was comprised of people who have been out of prison as long

as 5 years and as short as 1 day. The average sentence of the focus group sample served was 95

months, with the shortest sentence being 5 months and the longest 336 months. The focus group

participant sample was comprised of individuals who have been housed by the Florida

Department of Corrections, with only one participant who had not served time in Florida. Three

participants had served a prison sentence in another in addition to Florida. The focus group

sample was comprised of approximately 16% drug offenders (8 individuals), 38% property









offenders (19 individuals), 28% violent offenders (14 individuals), 8% violators of probation or

parole (4 individuals), and 8% other types of offenders (4 individuals).

The demographics of the focus group participants, as was the case with the jail-only

participants, were only similar to those of the total sample in education. The focus group

participant group was comprised of more black participants, individuals who had been released

from prison longer ago (approximately 7 months), and served longer sentences (3 years). The

focus group participants were also more likely to have committed a property or violent offense,

and were less likely to have been convicted of a drug offense. The focus group participants'

demographics were generally similar to the prison participants' demographics in age, race,

education, and types of offenses committed. However, the focus group participants were more

likely to have recently been released (approximately 10 months less) and more likely to have

served a longer prison term (approximately 8 months longer) than prison participants.

Data Collection

For those participants who participated in both the focus group and the survey, the focus

groups were conducted first and then the survey was administered. This ordering would prevent

the researcher's prior notion about what occurs within prison from impacting focus group

responses. This was the plan for data collection efforts, but as will be described later, this

procedure varied in some locations due to situational circumstances.

Once the half-way house or transitional program agreed to allow the researcher access to

its current residents, a convenient time and location to meet with residents who met the criteria

for the study was agreed upon by the researcher and the half-way house or transitional program

staff. Prior to beginning the study, the researcher informed residents that participation in the

study was voluntary, that they were able to leave at any time, and that their participation in the

study would not impact their relationship with the half-way house or transitional program. For









the residents who agreed to be a part of the study, the researcher passed to them a large envelope,

which contained a survey, a smaller white envelope with an informed consent form inside of it

and another informed consent form. The two informed consents and survey had an identical

number written in the corner (e.g. 004 or 005)2. While participants were signing the informed

consent, the researcher typically set up multiple tape recorders. The tape recorders were placed in

the center of the circle of participants. This allowed the researcher to conduct the focus group,

and transcribe the session at a later date (Morgan & Spanish, 1984). Once all of the informed

consents had been collected, the researcher reiterated that participation was voluntary and asked

if the participates had any questions. The tape recorders were turned on and the focus group

sessions began.

Focus Groups

The use of focus groups as a methodological tool allows researchers to explore

experiences of individuals and groups by creating a conversation that combines personal beliefs

and collective narratives (Morgan, 1996; Morgan & Spanish, 1984; Warr, 2005). Focus groups

are controlled group discussions in which the group discussion is "focused" on some collective

activity or topic (Frey & Fontana, 1991; Kitzinger, 1994; Morgan & Spanish, 1984; Smithson,

2000). The use of focus groups provides researchers insight on behaviors, motivations or thought

processes as well as experiences of those participating in the focus group (McLafferty, 2004;

Morgan, 1996). In this case, the researcher hoped to gain knowledge about individuals who have

been incarcerated, and also about the group experience and prison culture, specifically

experiences with correctional officers.

2 The researcher plans to keep the list of participants and their responses for 5 years in order to conduct future
research on recidivism among the individuals. The list of participants' names will be kept in a locked file cabinet at
the University of Florida and kept separate from the survey responses.









Though the study's protocol called for focus groups to be conducted at all study sites and

times, only 8 of the 10 groups actually participated in a focus group (See Table 3-3). In one of

the groups, Group 5, participants did not want to participate in a focus group. One of the

participants asked if he was going to receive financial compensation for his participation. Upon

hearing no from the researcher, he and several other participants stated they did not have time for

a focus group. The remaining four participants stated they had worked all day and did not want

to participate. The researcher asked the participants if they would be at least willing to complete

the survey, which all seven participants of Group 5 were willing to do.

The other group that did not participate in a focus group was Group 9. However, unlike

Group 5, these participants were not given the opportunity to participate in a focus group. When

the group was set up with the director of the organization, the researcher expressed that she

would require a room away from program staff for the focus groups and at least 45 minutes with

the possible participants. It was believed that the researcher would be conducting 3 or 4 groups

one after one another with about 12 participants in each group. However, upon arriving at the

location, the director was unable to secure an unoccupied room for the researcher. The location

that was provided to the researcher was a hallway of the county criminal courthouse, which

would not allow for the protection of the participants or sessions to be tape recorded clearly.

Also, the organization was only able to provide the researcher with access to the participants for

approximately 20 minutes. Since conducting focus groups was not going to be a possibility, the

researcher asked participants if they were willing to complete the survey.

As previously stated, there were 8 focus groups that were conducted. The focus groups

did not exceed the recommended focus group participant size of 12 participants at a time (Frey &

Fontana, 1991). The focus groups lasted approximately of 45 minutes, since time depended on









Table 3-3. Types of Groups Held
Group Participated in Focus Participated in Participated in Focus
Group Only Survey Only Group and Survey
1. House of Hope X

2. Salvation Army: X
Red Shield Lodge
3. Prisoners of X
Christ
4. Prisoners of X
Christ
5. Salvation Army: X
Red Shield Lodge
6. Prisoners of X
Christ
7. THORM Inc X
Ministries
8. Center of Hope X
9. Pinellas X
Ex-Offender Re-
entry Coalition3
10. Salvation X
Army: Red
Shield Lodge

the group's willingness to share and time constraints imposed by half-way houses and

transitional programs' schedules. The researcher sat in the circle with participants and asked a

list of questions regarding their experiences of prison life4 (see Table 3-4). Due to some groups

having time constraints, the researcher was not always able to ask all of the questions. The

researcher typically took notes during the focus group in order to keep track of who talked and in

what order. This was helpful with transcribing the session later.

The focus groups ranged from 3 to 12 participants, and varied in location (see Table 3-1). All

but two of the focus groups were conducted in the evening. This created a problem with



3 All 36 jail-only participants were part of Group 9 (Pinellas Ex-offenders Re-entry Coalition). The remaining 13
participants from Group 9 were prison participants.
4 Additional questions for another research project were also asked following the questions related to this study.










Table 3-4. Focus Group Questions
Question Number Initial Question
1 How would you describe your prison experience? (Explain)

Research Question 1:

3 What were your interactions with staff like? (Examples)


4 What were the interactions between staff and other inmates like?


6 Did some officers treat you differently than others? How so? Why do
you think this happened? (Explain)

8 If you were talking to your friends, how would you describe the staff in
the prison where you were? What about the interactions you had with
them?

Research Question 2:

2 In your experience, what type of things did staff do to control inmates?
(Please explain. Can you give us some examples?)

5 Did officers mess with you? With other inmates? How? Please give us
some examples of how this happened.

7 When you did something wrong, would you be punished the same way
each time? How were you generally punished? The same as other
inmates? Why or why not? (Explain)

Closing Question
9 What would you like people who do research on inmate-staff
interactions to know that we have not discussed already?

participants complaining of being tired, since they had to wake up early in the morning and had

worked all day. In Group 2, eight out of the eleven individuals left during the focus group

session. Two of the participants left to talk on their cell phones, one stated the subject matter was

too sensitive for him, and the remaining five who left complained of being tired. All of the eight

individuals who left completed a survey prior to leaving the focus group. All evening group

sessions were held following dinner and were held in lieu of a regularly scheduled required









meeting. As for the two groups that were not conducted at night, one was a morning session that

was held following a staff meeting and other was an afternoon session that was held in lieu of a

bible study class. Six of the focus group sessions were conducted in a room of the half-way

house. Two of the other focus groups were held in a local church, where the half-way house held

its regularly scheduled substance abuse support group meeting, and the other focus group session

was held in the kitchen of the half-way house's business office5.

Surveys

Following a focus group the tape recorder was turned off by the researcher. The researcher

then thanked the participants and reminded participants that participation in the study was

voluntary. The participants were then asked to remove the survey from the large envelope, and

complete the survey, though some participants began completing the survey during the focus

group. They were also asked to not place any personal identifiers on the survey, such as their

name or former Department of Corrections' inmate number. The surveys took approximately 10

to 20 minutes to complete. On one occasion the researcher read the questions and answers

options to a participant who had difficulty reading. The researcher filled in or circled the answers

for the participant. In the case of Group 9, which had both prison participants and jail-only

participants, when the participant returned the survey, the researcher asked the participant if he

had ever been incarcerated in a state or federal run prison. If the participant said no, the

researcher marked the outside of the envelope with the letter J, indicating that he had only served

time in county jail or jails. If the participant indicated that he had been incarcerated in a prison,

no notation was made. Upon completion of the survey, participants were informed that the



5 As previously stated, the remaining group's participants were not given the opportunity to participant in a focus
group, some of which was due to the location. The location of this group was the hallway of a county criminal
courthouse.









remaining copy of the informed consent was theirs to keep and they were again thanked for their

participation. Participants did not receive any financial compensation for their participation.

Measures

There were two instruments utilized in this study. The first was a list of unstructured focus

group questions and the second was a written, structured survey. The measurement items were

mainly selected based on previous literature and the researcher's personal experience working in

the Florida Department of Corrections. In line with the beliefs of convict criminologists,6 the

knowledge or ideas drawn from firsthand experiences gained while housed or working within the

prison system allows for a more accurate understanding of the correctional system (Richards &

Ross, 2001). The informal sanctions used in the survey were selected from previous literature,

inmates' personal accounts and the researcher's witnessing the use of the sanctions. The

questions regarding interactions with officers and adjectives describing officers were developed

from conversation with inmates currently incarcerated.

Focus Group Questions

In order to answer the two research questions, several questions were formulated to ask the

participants during the focus group (See Table 3-4). Nine questions were typically asked, but as

previously stated, due to time constraints during some of the focus groups not all the questions

were asked in some cases. There were four questions geared at determining what the prison

experience was like for inmates regarding staff and their interactions with staff. The questions

ranged from very broad, such as simply asking participants to describe their interactions with

staff, to specific examples on how or if officers treated the participant differently than other



6 Convict criminologists are inmates or ex-inmates, who have Ph.D.s or are working towards obtaining one that
write and publish essays and/or conducted empirical research about policies or practices regarding criminology,
criminal justice, corrections and community corrections (Richards & Ross, 2001).









inmates. Three questions were developed to examine the methods of control used by officers to

manage inmates. Once again the questions ranged from broad to very specific. There was an

initial question that asked participants to describe their prison experience, which depending on

their response could answer either research question. The hope in having such an open-ended

question was to make participants feel comfortable and not threatened (Frey & Fontana, 1991).

In addition, it allowed former inmates to discuss important aspects of their prison experience

before being prompted. There was also a closing question which asked participants what they

would like to see researchers examine regarding inmate and staff interactions in the future7.

Survey

The survey was 13 pages including the cover page (See Appendix A). It had 4 personal

characteristics questions regarding age, sex, race and educational level and 6 additional questions

about criminal history and release from prison. These questions asked about time since release,

time in prison, time in half-way house (if currently in a half-way house), where the individual

was incarcerated, the security level of the facility where the person was incarcerated, and what

offense or offenses they had been convicted of for their last incarceration. Following the

demographic and criminal history questions, the survey asked questions about officers' use of

formal sanctions. Responses were based on a Likert scale, in which the respondent circled his

level of agreement with the statement ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree.

The next section of the survey consisted of questions which tried to measure the

occurrence of informal sanctioning while the participant was in prison as well as his beliefs and

perceptions about the impact of this sanctioning. The survey asked respondents about nine

possible informal sanctions. The informal sanctions were selected based on previous literature


7 Additional questions were asked to the focus groups regarding another student's research project.










and the researcher's personal experience working in the Florida Department of Corrections. The

nine informal sanctions were: not being told when count has been cleared,8 being forced to

remain sitting up during relax count,9 not having the phone turned on, not being allowed the full

minutes of phone usage, being forced to rush during eating, shortened access to the yard, reduced

access to smoking and rec time by means of not opening the yard, reduced access to the canteen

and being yelled at. The questions asked respondents to circle the level of agreement with

statements regarding officers utilizing the listed informal sanctions, either towards them or other

inmates. After being asked about the occurrence of those sanctions, respondents were asked if

each one of those informal sanctions were effective by circling their level of agreement, whether

the sanction was not at all effective, a little effective, effective and very effective.

The survey then asked respondents questions regarding their interactions with officers on

an informal level. The aim of these questions was to examine the former inmate's perception of

these interactions. Once again, there was a list of statements that respondents were asked to

identify their levels of agreement with by circling strongly agree, agree, unsure, disagree and

strongly disagree. Statements were as follows: He/she wanted something; He/she was trying to

get out of work; He/she was trying to hit on me; He/she was trying to get information from me;

He/she was trying to get information about me; He/she was concerned about my problems;

He/she was sincere in his/her interaction; He/she was no different than anyone else. Respondents

were also asked to identify their level of agreement to the statement "I felt most officers were"

and the listed word. The list of words was: educated, criminal, fair, patient, polite, wise, violent,

8 Count refers to the process by which the Department of Corrections verifies all inmates are accounted for by
literally counting the inmates. Inmates are typically required to remain sitting upright on their bunk until an officer
tells them they are allowed to do otherwise.

9 Relax count refers to the time period when the dorm officer has counted all inmates, but is waiting for the count to
clear, meaning all inmates are accounted for. During relax counts inmates are usually allowed to lay down and do
other activities such as read, as long as they remain on their bunk.









religious, cruel, rude, and drug abusers. The levels of possible agreement options ranged from

strongly disagree to strongly agree. 10

Participant Protection

Since the study used human subjects, the researcher took certain measures and precautions

to protect the participants of the study. The researcher did not allow half-way house and

transitional program directors or managers or their staff to sit in on the group session or when

surveys were being administered. The researcher did not provide half-way house employees with

information about participants' responses. The researcher also took precautions to minimize the

risk of others linking a participant with his responses (i.e., did not have the subject's name on the

survey). The list of participants with their code number that linked the informed consent and the

survey together was kept password protected in a file at the University of Florida. The list was

kept separate from the survey and recorded tapes.

Variables

Dependent Variables

The dependent variables for this study are eleven scales that were created and the items

that the scales were comprised of. In order to develop the scales, exploratory factor analysis was

conducted. Factor analysis allows for the discovery and summarizing of the pattern of inter-

correlation among variables (Wuensch, 2005). Using Statistical Package for Social Sciences

(SPSS), factor analysis was conducted with the items that were meant to assess inmate and

correctional officers' interactions. There were 8 items meant to measure interactions: he/she

wanted something, he/she was trying to get out of work, he/she was trying to hit one me, he/she

was trying to get information from me, he/she was trying to get information about me, he/she


10 There are additional questions added to the survey for future research examining the role of religion in prison, but
that data will not be used in this study.









was concerned about my problems, he/she was sincere in his/her interactions, and he/she was no

different than anyone else. The items' response options were based on a Likert scale with 1

strongly disagree, 2 disagree, 3 unsure, 4 agree and 5 strongly agree. In order to be able to

examine the mean scores, the scale items, he/she was concerned about my problems, he/she was

sincere in his/her interactions, and he/she was no different than anyone else, was recorded so 1

strongly agree, 2 agree, 3 unsure, 4 disagree and 5 strongly disagree. A higher response number

indicated a "negative" response, while a lower response number indicated a "positive" response.

Following the recoding, the author ran factor analysis using Varimax rotation, with the goal

being to understand the relationship among the items by approximating a simple structure. Also,

Varimax rotation is the most commonly used rotation (Wuensch, 2005).

It was found that three components had Eigenvalues above 1, and what items loaded on the

three components or scales at .5 or above. The first component became the "suspicious

interaction scale," and was comprised of the following three items: he/she wanted something,

he/she was trying to get information from me, and he/she was trying to get information about me.

The items loaded on the scale at .65, .89, and .87, respectively. The scale items were added to

together then divided by three in order for the scale values to remain the same. Conceptually the

items appeared to be related. Agreement with the items meant that participants viewed their

interactions with correctional officers with suspicion. The scale items indicated that correctional

officers' interactions were guided by them wanting something, which included information about

the inmate and/or from the inmate. The Cronbach's alpha of .78 indicated the scale had good

internal consistency.

The second scale that was formed was termed the "negative interaction scale". It was

comprised of 2 items: he/she was trying to get out of work and he/she was trying to hit on me.









The item, he/she was trying to get out of work, loaded on the scale at .79, while the second item

loaded at .80. The two scale items were added to together then divided by two. This was done so

the scale values would remain the same for comparison purposes. The items appeared to show

that some participants believed that correctional officers may have negative motives behind their

interaction, such as not wanting to work or trying to make sexual advances toward inmates. The

reliability for the scale was .55, which indicated lower internal consistency than the previous

scale.

The final scale that was formed was comprised of two items. The two items were he/she

was sincere in his/her interaction, which loaded at .83, and he/she was concerned with my

problems, which also loaded at .83. The items formed the "positive interaction scale". The scale

items were added to together then divided by two in order for the scale values to remain the

same. The items conceptually fit, since the items indicated positive interactions with correctional

officers. Reliability for the scale was .71, showing good internal consistency.

One of the survey items that was meant to measure inmate and correctional officer

interactions was dropped from the analysis. The factor analysis showed that the item, he/she was

no different than anyone else, did not load on any of the three components.

Exploratory factor analysis was also run with the survey items that were designed to

measure former inmates' perception of correctional officers' traits. There were 10 items meant to

measure those traits: educated, criminal, fair, patient, polite, wise, violent, cruel, rude and drug

abuser. As with the previous scale, the items' response options were 1 strongly disagree, 2

disagree, 3 unsure, 4 agree and 5 strongly agree and in order to be able to examine the mean

scores, the scale items, educated, fair, patient, polite and wise were recorded. A higher response









number, once again, indicated a "negative" response, while a lower response number indicated a

"positive" response.

The "negative trait scale" was comprised of the following 3 items: drug abusers, rude and

cruel, which loaded together at .5 or above. The items loaded on the component at .92, .89, and

.76, respectively. The three scale items were added to together then divided by three. This

allowed for the scale's values to remain the same as scale items' values. The items appear to be

related since agreement with the items meant that participants viewed correctional officers as

having negative personal characteristics and inmates did not hold them in high regard. The

Cronbach's alpha of .86 indicated the scale to have good internal consistency.

The second scale that was formed was termed the "positive trait scale". It was comprised

of 5 items: educated, fair, patient, polite and wise. The item, educated, loaded on the component

at .74, while the second item, fair, loaded at .66. The items, patient, polite and wise loaded on the

component at .83, .86 and .82. The scale items were added to together then divided by five in

order for the scale values to remain the same as the scale items' values. Agreement with the scale

items would indicate that participants agreed with correctional officers having positive

characteristics. The reliability for the scale was .86, which indicated good internal consistency.

The item, criminal, did not load on either of the previous 2 components, but stood as its

own component and did so at .94. Agreement indicated that participants viewed correctional

officers as criminal.

The previous five scales discussed were used to answer the first research question, what

was the prison experience like for former inmates regarding correctional officers and what were

their interactions with correctional officers like. Exploratory factor analysis was used to develop

scales that examined survey items addressing the second research question, what methods of









informal control did officers use to control inmates and what was their impact as experienced by

former inmates. First, exploratory factor analysis was run on the 9 items meant to examine

informal social control experienced by the participants. Those items were: not told when it was

relax count, being forced to remain sitting up during relax count, not having the phone be turned

on, not allowed the full minutes of phone usage, being forced to rush during eating, shortened

access to the yard, reduced access to smoking and rec time, reduced access to the canteen, and

being yelled at. The items' response options were based on a Likert scale with 1 never, 2

sometimes, 3 half the time, 4 usually and 5 always, and no recoding was required. A higher

response number indicated more experiences with the method, while a lower response number

indicated fewer experiences with the method.

It was found that two components had Eigenvalues above 1, with items loading on the

components or scales at .5 or above. The first scale was the "limit access control scale", which

was comprised of the following four items: being forced to rush during eating, shortened access

to the yard, reduced access to smoking and rec time, and reduced access to the canteen. The

items loaded on the component at .77, .77, .70 and .72, respectively. The four scale items were

added to together then divided by four. This allowed for the scale's values to remain the same as

scale items' values. The scale appeared to be compromised of control items that reduced or

limited access for inmates to things they valued. The Cronbach's alpha of .77 indicated the scale

had good internal consistency.

The second scale that was formed was termed the "removal control scale". It was

comprised of four items: not told when it was relax count, being forced to remain sitting up

during relax count, not having the phone be turned on, and not allowed the full minutes of phone

usage. The item, not told when it was relax count, loaded on the component at .63, while the









second item loaded at .54. The third item, not having the phone be turned on, loaded at .70. The

final item, not allowed the full minutes of phone usage, loaded at .78. The items appeared to be

related conceptually as well in that they all dealt with the correctional officers removing

something from the inmates as a way to control them. The scale items were added to together

then divided by four in order for the scale's values to remain the same scale items' values.

Agreement from the participants would indicate that the correctional officers removed the phone

or full usage of the phone from inmates, and removed the ability of inmates to move during relax

count. The reliability for the scale was .67, which indicated moderate internal consistency.

One of the survey items that was meant to measure a possible method of informal social

control was dropped from the analysis. The factor analysis showed that the item, being yelled at,

did not load on either of the two components.

Exploratory factor analysis was also conducted of the items meant to measure whether

participants witnessed the methods of informal social control being utilized by correctional

officers on other inmates. There were nine items meant to measure the methods participants

witnessed: being forced to rush during eating, shortened access to the yard, reduced access to

smoking and rec time, reduced access to the canteen, not told when it was relax count, being

forced to remain sitting up during relax count, not having the phone be turned on, not allowed

the full minutes of phone usage, and being yelled at. As previously stated, the items' response

options were based on a Likert scale with 1 never, 2 sometimes, 3 half the time, 4 usually and 5

always, and no recoding was necessary. The higher the number the greater amount of witnessing

the use of the method to control other inmates. A lower score indicated a lesser amount of

witnessing the use of the method on other inmates.









Factor analysis indicated that two components had Eigenvalues above 1 and what items

loaded on those two components or scales at .5 or above. The "limit access control for others

scale" was the first scale and was comprised of the four items: being forced to rush during eating,

shortened access to the yard, reduced access to smoking and rec time and reduced access to the

canteen. The items loaded on the component at .71, .78, .71 and .80, respectively. The scale

items were added to together then divided by four in order for the scales' values to be the same

as scale items' values. The same items had formed the "limit access control scale" when

participants were asked about their own experiences. The items appear to measure correctional

officers' use of limiting access for other inmates as a method of control. The Cronbach's alpha of

.77 indicated the scale to have good internal consistency.

The second scale that was formed was the "removal control for others scale". It was

comprised of 5 items: not told when it was relax count, being forced to remain sitting up during

relax count, not having the phone be turned on, not allowed the full minutes of phone usage, and

being yelled at. The item, not told when it was relax count, loaded on the component at .83,

while the second item, being forced to remain sitting up during relax count loaded at .62. The

third and fourth items, not having the phone be turned on and not allowed the full minutes of

phone usage, loaded at .78 and .66. The final item, being yelled at, loaded at .52. The five scale

items were added to together then divided by five. This allowed for the scale's and the scale

items' values to be the same. The items formed a similar scale as the items measuring whether

the participants had experience the methods of informal social control. The only exception was

that the item, being yelled at, loaded on this factor when it did not for the scale asking

participants about personal experiences. As with the previous scale, the items appeared to imply

the correctional officers removing things from the inmates as a method of control. The additional









item, being yelled at, might indicate the removal of peace and quiet, a sense of calm, or perhaps

the removal of the some of the inmate's dignity or pride caused by the officer yelling at the

inmate. The reliability for the scale was .66, which indicated moderate internal consistency.

The final scale that was formed by running factor analysis was comprised of items that

were meant to measure the perceived effectiveness of the methods of informal social control.

Those items were: not being told when it was relax count, being forced to remain sitting up

during relax count, not having the phone turned on, not allowing the full minutes of phone usage,

being forced to rush during eating, shortened access to the yard, reduced access to smoking and

rec time, and reduced access to the canteen, and being yelled at. The items' response options

were based on a Likert scale with 1 not at all effective, 2 a little effective, 3 effective and 4 very

effective. No recoding was necessary. A higher response number indicated a higher perceived

effectiveness, while a lower response number indicated a lower perceived effectiveness.

The items all loaded on one component at above .5. The first and second items, not being

told when it was relax count and being forced to remain sitting up, loaded at .68 and .67. The

third, fourth and fifth items, not having the phone turned on, not allowing the full minutes of

phone usage, and being forced to rush during eating, loaded on the component at .82, .75 and .82,

respectively. The sixth item, shortened access to the yard, loaded at .86, while the seventh item,

reduced access to smoking and rec time, loaded at .81. The loading of the eighth item, reduced

access to smoking and rec time, was .84. The ninth and final item, being yelled at, loaded at .73.

The nine scale items were added to together then divided by nine in order for the scale's values

to remain the same as the nine scale items' values. The items conceptually fit, since the items

indicated whether the participant perceived the methods of informal social control were

effective. Each item that was meant to measure the perceptive effectiveness of informal social









control was included in the scale. Reliability for the scale was .92, showing high internal

consistency.

Independent Variables

The previously listed eleven scales were used as dependent variables, as well as the items

that comprised the scales. There were six independent variables included in the analysis. The

first independent variable was age. This was assessed by asking participants were asked, "how

old are you?". The variable was left as a continuous variable. The second independent variable

was race. Participants were asked, "how would you describe your race and/or ethnicity", then

asked to circle one of the following response options: white, black/African American, Hispanic,

or other, which had a space to specify what they defined as other. The responds were recorded to

0 indicating non-white and 1 indicating white. The third independent variable was years of

education. Participants were asked, "what is the highest level of education you have obtained",

then asked to circle a response option. The options were: none, 1st grade, 2nd grade, 3rd grade, 4th

grade, 5th grade, 6th grade, 7th grade, 8th grade, 9th grade, 10th grade, 11th grade, high school,

GED, some college, Associate's degree, Bachelor's degree and other, with space to specify what

they defined as other. The responses were recorded so the option matched the years of education

(i.e., 2nd grade was recorded from 3 to 2 for two years of school). This created the years of school

variable. In the case of high school and GED, both were coded into 12, for 12 years of school.

The responses of Associate's degree and Bachelor's degree was recorded into 14 and 16,

respectively. The fourth independent variable was time since release from prison orjail, also

referred to as months out. Participants were asked, "how long since you have been out of

prison11?", and participants had the option to indicate in months or years. All responses were


11 In the case of jail-only participants, they were verbally instructed to indicate the amount of time since their release
fromjail. The same was true of the question pertaining to how much time they served in jail.









entered in as months, so responses that were written in years were converted into months. The

fifth independent variable was the amount of time served in prison or jail, as referred to as

months in. participants were asked, "how long were you in prison", and participants were, once

again, given the option to indicate the amount in months or years. As in the case with the

previous variable, all responses were entered in as months. Reponses written in years were

converted into months. The sixth and final independent variable was offense type, also referred

to as crime type. Participants were asked, "for your last incarceration, what offenses) were you

convicted of?", and participants were asked to list the offense carrying the longest sentence first.

Only the first offense was used for classification. Using an offense type rubric that is utilized by

Alachua County Court Services in classifying offenders, participants were classified into one of

the following categories: drug, property, violent, violation of probation or parole and other. The

"other" category was offenses not listed on the rubric or traffic violations, which had too few

numbers to create a category. The categories were then recorded to create that independent

variable that was used. The categories of drug, property, violators of probation or parole and

other were recorded as 0 indicating non-violent, and 1 indicating violent.

Analysis

The analysis for this study utilized techniques for both qualitative and quantitative data.

There are four methods that combine focus groups and surveys (Morgan, 1996). The first method

is where surveys are the primary source of data and focus groups are used to help researchers

design and create the survey. The second is the reverse of the first method, focus groups are the

primary method and surveys are used to help create the focus groups and focus groups'

questions. The third method uses focus groups as the primary data source and surveys are used as

follow-up data to interpret the data from the focus groups. The final combination was the method

that was utilized in this study. Surveys were the primary data source and focus groups were used









as follow-ups to assist in interpreting the survey data. The expectation in using this method was

to obtain a clear in-depth understanding of the prison experience, especially as it relates to staff

interaction.

In order to answer both research questions, frequencies were first run in order to examine

how participants responded. Once frequencies were run on all scales and scale items, the

percentage of participants that responded to the survey items and their mean scores were

examined. This allowed the author to state approximately what percentage of participants agreed

with the scales and scale items, or depending on the survey questions the percentage that

reported experiencing or witnessing the method of control and their perceived effectiveness of

the methods.

Following the frequencies, correlations were run with all scales and scale items across all

samples. This allowed the author to examine possible correlations between the dependent

variables (scales and scale items) and independent variables (age, race, years of school, months

out, months in, and offense type). Once it was determined there were variables with significant

relationships, ordinary least squares linear (OLS) regression was run. OLS regression analysis

was used in this paper since it allows for the examination of the predictive relationship between

the dependent variables and explanatory variables.

Throughout the analysis, the focus group data were examined for possible themes that

matched or contradicted what was found from the survey results. Qualitative examples that

supported or expanded the results that were found from the quantitative data were noted.

Summary

This section described the methodology that the study utilized. It discussed the half-way

houses and transitional programs from where the sample was drawn. The method of data

collection, which included describing the focus group and the survey administration, was









presented. The measures, both focus group questions and surveys, were described in detail, and

there was a section describing the measures that were taken to protect participants. The variables

utilized in the study were discussed, and the final section described the data analysis techniques

that were utilized.









CHAPTER 4
RESULTS

This section describes the results from this study. First, the author discusses the results

from the first research question. Then, the author describes the results from the second research

question. For both questions, focus group data is used to try to further understand the survey data

and tables are used to display data.

Research Question 1: Experience with Correctional Officers

The first research question this report hopes to answer is, 'what was the prison experience

like for former inmates regarding correctional officers and, what were their interactions with

correctional officers like?'. This is accomplished by first examining how participants responded

on the survey. Next, the focus group results are examined in order to determine whether they

corroborated the survey results or perhaps explained the survey results. This is followed by

results from the correlations that were run, and lastly, results from the regressions that were

conducted on items found be significantly correlated.

In order to examine how participants responded, the percentage of participants that

responded to the survey items and their mean scores were examined. All the percent reported

are valid percent. From items pertaining to the first research question, there was a high response

rate. The total sample had an overall 91% response rate (96 out of 106) or higher, while the

prison participants had a 90% response rate (63 out of 70) or higher. The jail-only participants

had the lowest overall response rate at 81% (29 out of 36) and the focus group participants had

the highest response rate at 96% (48 out of 50) or higher.

Frequencies: Correctional Officer and Inmate Interactions Scales

First, frequencies were run on the "suspicious interaction scale" to determine how

participants responded to the scale's items and the means were examined (See Table 4-1).










Table 4-1. Inmate and Correctional Officer Interactions
Survey Participants Focus Group Participants
Total Sample Prison Participants Jail-only Participants Prison Participants
(N=106) (N=70) (N=3 6) (N=50)
N % Agree Mean N % Agree Mean N % Agree Mean N % Agree Mean


Suspicious interaction
scale (1 Strongly
Disagree, 2 Disagree,
3 Unsure, 4 Agree, 5
Strongly Agree)
Item 1: He/she wanted
something
Item 2: He/she was
trying to get info from
me
Item 3: He/she was
^ trying to get info about
me
a=.78

Negative interaction
scale (1 Strongly
Disagree, 2 Disagree,
3 Unsure, 4 Agree, 5
Strongly Agree)
Item 1: He/she was
trying to get out of
work
Item 2: He/she was
trying to hit on me
a=.55


40.0

41.4


40 40.0


25 25.3


16 16.2


3.0 32 47.0

3.0 32 47.8


3.1 28 41.8


17 25.3


10 14.9


3.2 8 25.0

3.2 9 28.1


3.2 12 37.5


2.8 8 25.0


2.2 6 18.8


2.8 27 55.1

2.7 26 54.2


2.9 23 47.9


2.5 14 29.2


8 16.7











Table 4-1. Continued
Survey Participants Focus Group Participants
Total Sample Prison Participants Jail-only Participants Prison Participants
(N=106) (N=70) (N=36) (N=50)
N % Agree Mean N % Agree Mean N % Agree Mean N % Agree Mean


Positive
Interactions Scale
(1 Strongly Agree,
2 Agree, 3 Unsure,
4 Disagree, 5
Strongly Disagree)
Item 1: He/she was 28
sincere about
his/her interactions
Item 2: He/she was 23
00 concerned about
my problems
a=.71


28.6


23.7


3.1 16 23.9


3.3 13 19.4


3.2 12 38.7


3.4 10 33.3


2.9 13 27.1


3.1 9 18.8









The total sample's overall mean for the scale was 3.1, indicating a response of "unsure" as to

whether as the participant viewed his interactions with correctional officers with suspicion.

Prison participants had similar results (mean= 3.2), as did the subset group of focus group

participants (mean= 3.3). The jail-only participants' mean was 2.8, indicating "disagree".

Overall, the mean scores for the "suspicious interaction scale" were close across the four groups.

This pattern was present in the scale items' mean scores. For all the items, the total sample,

prison participants, and focus group participants' mean scores ranged from 3.0 to 3.3, indicating

"unsure", while the mean scores for jail-only participants ranged from 2.7 to 2.9, indicating

"disagree".

Next, each item that the scale was comprised of was examined individually to determine

what percentage of participants agreed with each item. Agreement was determined by combining

"agree" and "strongly agree" responses. For the first item, he/she wanted something, fewer than

half of the total sample (N= 40, 40%) and prison participants (N= 32, 47%) agreed, while only

one-fourth of the jail-only participants (N= 8, 25%) did. However, over half of the focus group

participants (N= 27, 55.1%) agreed. Similar, results were found with the second item, he/she was

trying to get information from me. Fewer than half of the total sample (N= 41, 41.4%) and prison

participants (N= 32, 47.8%) agreed, while only slightly more than one-fourth of the jail-only

participants (N= 9, 28.1%) agreed. Once again, over half of the focus group participants (N= 26,

54.2%) agreed. The third and final item, he/she was trying to get information about me, had the

least amount of variance across groups. Fewer than half of all four groups agreed. The subset

group of focus group participants (N= 23, 47.9%) had the most agreement, followed by the

prison participants (N= 28, 41.8%). The total sample (N=40, 40%) had similar agreement

percentage to that of the prison participants. The jail-only participants (N= 12, 37.5%) had the










lowest percentage agreement. Overall, there appears to be some evidence that participants

viewed interactions with suspicion, with the focus group participants being most likely to agree,

while jail-only participants were the least likely to agree.

The next scale examined was the "negative interaction scale" (See Table 4-1). The total

sample had an overall scale mean score of 2.5, indicating a response of "disagree" with the

interactions they had with correctional officers being negative in orientation. Similarly, the

prison participants' mean score was 2.5; the jail-only participants' mean score was 2.4 and the

focus group participants' mean score was 2.6, all indicating "disagree". Across all groups, the

mean scores for the two items that the scale was comprised of all indicated a "disagree"

response. The scores ranged from 2.2 to 2.9.

As with the previous scale, agreement was determined by combining "agree" and "strongly

agree" responses. For the first item of the "negative interaction scale", he/she was trying to get

out of work, one-fourth of the total sample (N= 25, 25.3%), prison participants (N= 17, 25.3%),

and jail-only participants (N= 8, 25%) agreed. Slightly more of the focus group participants (N=

14, 29.2%) agreed with the first item. The second item, he/she was trying to hit on me, had very

low levels of agreement across groups. The prison participants (N= 10, 14.9%) had the lowest,

followed by the total sample (N= 16, 16.2%). The focus group participants (N= 8, 16.7%) had

the second highest agreement, while the jail-only participants (N= 6, 18.8%) had the highest

percentage agreement. Overall, the scale items had lower percentages of agreement in

comparison to the previous scale. While some participants agreed with statements that indicated

a negative interaction, most did not. The groups had similar percentages of agreement for both

items, with focus group participants having a slightly higher percentage for the first item, and

jail-only participants having higher agreement for the second item.









The final interaction scale was the "positive interaction scale" (See Table 4-1). The overall

scale mean for the total sample was 3.2, indicating "unsure". An "unsure" response would

indicate the participant was unsure as to whether his interactions with correctional officers were

positive. The prison participants (mean= 3.3) and focus group participants (mean= 3.4) had

similar mean scores, also indicating "unsure". The jail-only participants' mean score was 2.9,

indicating "disagree". The mean scores for the two scale items were similar. For the total sample,

prison participants and focus group participants the mean scores indicated "unsure" for both

items and ranged from 3.1 to 3.5. However, the jail-only participants mean score indicated

"disagree" for the first item (mean= 2.9), and "unsure" for the second item (mean= 3.1). Overall,

the groups were similar.

For the "positive interaction scale", agreement was determined in manner previously

stated, by combining "agree" and "strongly agree" responses. The first item, he/she was sincere

about his/her interaction, received approximately 30% agreement from the total sample (N= 28,

28.6%) and focus group participants (N= 13, 27.1%). Fewer than one-fourth of the prison

participants (N= 16, 23.9%) agreed with the scale item, while nearly 40% of the jail-only

participants (N= 12, 38.7%) agreed. The percentage in agreement were lower for the second

item, he/she was concerned about my problems. The prison participants (N= 13, 19.4%) and

focus group participants (N= 9, 18.8%) had roughly 20% agreement, while the total sample (N=

23, 23.7%) had slightly higher percentage agreement. Once again, the jail-only participants (N=

10, 33.3%) had the highest percentage agreement. Overall, the jail-only participants appear to be

most likely to agree with statements that indicated a positive interaction with correctional

officers. The remaining three groups had roughly similar percentages in agreement for each of

the scale items.









Frequencies: Correctional Officers' Traits Scales

The next set of scales measured perceived correctional officer traits (See Table 4-2). The

first scale was the "negative trait scale". The total samples' overall mean score was 3.0,

indicating a response of "unsure" as to whether correctional officers hold negative traits. The

prison participants (mean= 3.1) and focus group participants (mean= 3.4) also had mean scores

indicating "unsure". The jail-only participants' overall mean score was 2.7, indicating a

"disagree" response for correctional officers holding negative traits. For the three scale items, the

means scored varied based on the item. For the first item the mean score ranged from 2.7 to 2.9,

indicating "disagree", for the total sample, prison sample and jail-only sample. The focus group

sample had a mean score of 3.0, indicating "unsure". For the second item, all four groups had

mean score that indicated "unsure", ranging from 3.0 to 3.7. The final item had two groups,

prison participants (mean= 3.1) and focus group participants (mean= 3.3), whose mean scores

indicated "unsure". The remaining two groups, total sample (mean= 2.9) and jail-only

participants (mean= 2.9) mean scores indicated "disagree".

For the first item of the scale, drug abusers, fewer than 30% of participants from each

group agreed. Agreement was determined by combining "agree" and "strongly agree". The

prison participants (N= 14, 29%) and jail-only participants (N= 9, 28%) had higher percentage

agreement than did the total sample (N= 26, 26%) and prison participants (N= 17, 25%). The

second item, rude, had much higher percentage of participants agreeing with it. Focus group

participants (N= 33, 67%) and prison participants (N=41, 61%) had over 60% agreement, while

total sample (N= 54, 55%) had over 50% agreement. While fewer in comparison to the other

groups, the jail-only participants (N= 13, 42%) still had over 40% agreement. The third item,

cruel, saw the most variation in percentage agreed across groups. Over half of the focus group









Table 4-2. Correctional Officer Traits
Survey Participants Focus Group
Participants
Total Sample Prison Participants Jail-only Participants Prison Participants
(N= 106) (N=70) (N=3 6) (N=50)
N % Agree Mean N % Agree Mean N % Agree Mean N % Agree Mean


Negative Trait Scale
(1 Strongly Disagree, 2
Disagree, 3 Unsure, 4
Agree, 5 Strongly Agree)
Item 1: Drug abuser
Item 2: Rude
Item 3: Cruel
a=.86


26.3
55.1
39.2


25.4
61.2
45.5


28.1
41.9
25.8


28.6
67.3
52.0


Criminal Variable
> (1 Strongly Disagree, 2
Disagree, 3 Unsure, 4
Agree, 5 Strongly Agree)


31 31.6


22 32.4


3.0 9 30.0


2.9 15 30.0


Positive Trait Scale
(1 Strongly Agree, 2
Agree, 3 Unsure, 4
Disagree, 5= Strongly
Disagree)
Item 1: Educated
Item 2: Fair
Item 3: Patient
Item 4: Polite
Item 5: Wise
A =.86


33.0
35.7
26.3
24.7
24.5


26.5
34.3
20.6
19.1
16.7


46.9
38.7
38.7
37.9
40.6


28.0
33.3
18.4
20.4
20.8









participants (N= 25, 52%) agreed, while slightly fewer than half of the prison participants (N=

30, 46%) did. There was less agreement in the remaining two groups, total sample (N= 38, 39%)

and jail-only participants (N= 8, 26%). Overall, focus group participants were most likely to

agree with negative traits describing correctional officers. Across all groups, the item receiving

most agreement was the trait describing correctional officers as being rude.

As discussed in the data analysis section, the criminal variable loaded on its own

component when factor analysis was run. In examining the criminal variable by itself, the mean

score for total sample, jail-only and focus group participants was 2.9, indicating "disagree" (See

Table 4-2). With a very slight increase in overall mean score, prison participants (mean= 3.0)

indicated "unsure". Across all groups, 30% or slightly higher indicated the response "agree" or

"strongly agree" to the criminal variable, with prison participants (N= 22, 32%) had the highest

percentage agreement. Total sample (N= 31, 32%) had the next highest level agreement, and

lastly the two remaining groups, jail-only participants (N= 9, 30%) and focus group participants

(N= 15, 30%). The criminal variable received some support, in terms of agreement, across all

groups.

The "positive trait scale" was the final scale examined (See Table 4-2). The overall mean

score was 3.4 for the total sample, 3.5 for the prison participants and the focus groups

participants and 3.1 for the jail-only participants, in all cases indicating "unsure". An "unsure"

response indicated that a participant was unsure if correctional officers held positive traits. For

the first item, the total sample, prison participants, and focus group participants means ranged

from 3.2 to 3.4, indicating "unsure", while jail-only participants mean score was 2.9, indicating

"disagree". For all four of the remaining items and across all groups, the mean scores indicated

"unsure", and ranged from 3.1 to 3.6.









The "positive trait scale's" first item, educated, had slightly fewer than half of the jail-only

participant's (N= 15, 47%) agreement. Agreement, once again, was determined by combining

"agree" and "strongly agree" responses. A little greater than one-fourth of the prison participants

(N= 18, 27%) and focus group participants (N= 14, 28%) agreed, whereas one-third of the total

sample (N= 33, 33%) did. The second item, fair, had one-third or higher agreement for all four

groups, with highest percentage agreement from jail-only participants (N= 12, 39%). The total

sample (N= 35, 36%) had the next highest percentage agreement, followed by prison participants

(N= 23, 34%). The focus group (N= 16, 33%) had the lowest percentage agreement. There was

more variance in percentage agreed for the third item, patient. Jail-only participants (N= 12,

39%) had the highest percentage agreement, followed by the total sample (N= 26, 26%). The

remaining two groups, prison participants (N= 14, 21%) and focus group participants (N= 10,

20%), had similarly low percentage agreement with the scale item. The fourth item, polite, also

had staggered percentages of agreement across groups. Once again, jail-only participants (N= 11,

38%) had the highest percentage agreement, followed by the total sample (N= 24, 25%). Both,

prison participants (N= 13, 19%) and focus group participants (N= 9, 18%), had fewer than 20%

agreement. The fifth and final item, wise, received over 40% agreement from jail-only

participants (N= 13, 41%) but only fewer than 20% agreement from prison participants (N= 11,

17%). The total sample (N= 24, 25%) and focus group participants (N= 10, 21%) ranged

between the two groups in agreement.

Overall, jail-only participants were the most likely to agree with items that used positive

terms to describe correctional officers. In the case of all five scale items, jail-only participants

had the highest percentage agreement in comparison to the three other groups, whose

percentages in agreement were usually similar to each other.









Focus Group Data: Experience with Correctional Officers

As previously mentioned, approximately half of the former inmates involved in the study

participated in a focus group. The hope was that the focus groups would help gain a better

understanding of inmate and correctional officer's interactions and how correctional officers are

viewed by inmates. The survey questions examined what participants thought during their

interactions with correctional officers. The focus group questions allowed participants to

describe the interactions and expand on what they thought about their interactions. As was true

with the surveys, participants were more likely to described negative interactions experienced by

themselves or witnessed by others than describe positive interaction. In total the "suspicious

interaction scale" and the "negative interaction scale" were comprised of five survey items. The

focus group participants were the most likely to have indicated agreement for four of the five

items, and of those four items 50% or more of the focus group participants indicated agreement.

A number of focus group participants discussed negative interactions with correctional

officers during focus group sessions, lending creditability to the survey results. A white male

from Jacksonville said "they [correctional officers] treated me like I was a piece of shit". This

was echoed by a 42-year-old white male who served a 1-year-sentence. He stated "they do

whatever to humiliate you and make you feel like a worthless piece of dog shit". While 42-year-

old black male who served a 5-year-sentence said "I would say officers don't, don't respect

you...most of the time they don't even see you as human" and that correctional officers "... call

you every name but your name". A 45-year-old white male who served an 18-month-sentence

reported witnessing correctional officers being "disrespectful towards others inmates". When

asked to describe interactions with correctional officers, a 43-year-old black male who served a

7-year-sentence stated, "I seen them treat other people like animals instead of humans". A white

participant who served a 25-year-sentence said "see, an officer curse you and talk to you in any










kind of way". Some comments came from participants whose voices were not able to be

identified during the interview. One participant stated the interactions with correctional officers

were "traumatic... cause the way they [correctional officers] treat people". The second

unidentified participant said "they have an attitude from the time they come on the yard until the

time they leave".

None of the participants stated verbatim what the survey asked them (i.e., thought he/she

was trying to get out work). However, several participants did suggest that they viewed their

interaction with suspicion. For example, a 44-year-old Hispanic male who served over a 10-year-

sentence stated, "they're looking for trouble". His sentiment was reiterated by a 58-year-old

black male from a different Jacksonville focus group. He stated, "they do stuff on the sly". Both

comments suggested suspicion about correctional officers' motives.

The focus group results seem to indicate support of the survey results for inmates

describing negative interactions with correctional officers, as well as positive interactions with

correctional officers. However, in the survey overall the number of focus group participants that

indicated having some positive interaction was fewer than the number of focus group

participants indicating negative interactions. This was also found to be true in for the qualitative

focus group results.

A 44-year-old, white male from Clearwater stated, "I had good interactions", supporting

survey results indicating some participants had positive interactions. A comment from a 38-year-

old, black male from Gainesville, who said, "I had some officers that was alright" indicated he

had no complains about some of his interactions. Comments such as these were the exception,

however.









The literature has suggested that the biggest contributor for negative interactions may be

the negative views and opinions held by each group about one another (Grusky, 1959). Since

neither officers nor former officers were interviewed, it is impossible to verify the opinions of

correctional officers. However, it can be verified from the perspective of former inmates on their

views of correctional officers. In the survey results, focus group participants were most likely to

indicate agreement with scale items that negatively described correctional officers. The focus

groups results supported the survey results. For the most part, they did not hold positive views of

officers. For example, a 43-year-old black male described correctional officers as being "very

unprofessional" and "very judgmental".

A white male who resided in Jacksonville, when asked to describe correctional officers

said, "they're all crooked. They're all dogs". Another Jacksonville participant said that

correctional officers "...manipulate like a child", implying that correctional officers are

manipulative.

In the survey results, some participants did indicate agreement with correctional officers

having positive traits and views of correctional officers. The focus group participants did not

offer many comments that indicated they held correctional officers in high regard, or viewed

them as having positive traits; however, there was a little support. In an example from a 42-year-

old black male from Gainesville, he discussed his work officer. He stated, "he was a good

man... he was encouraging". Another Gainesville participant, who was a 38-year-old black male,

shared that "... some officers just genuinely care".

The focus group results support the results found from the surveys. Focus group

participants were more likely to discuss negative interactions and describe officers in a negative

manner, than discuss positive interactions and describe officer in a positive manner.









Correlations and Regressions: Correctional Officer and Inmate Interactions

Following the frequencies, correlations were run with the dependent and independent

variables for correctional officers' interactions (see Table 4-3). There were six independent

variables used: age, race, years of school, months out, months in and crime type. The three scales

about interactions with correctional officers were used as the dependent variables as well as the

seven total survey items that the three scales were comprised of. There were no significant

correlations found for the total sample, prison participants and jail-only participants for any of

the dependent and independent variables. However, for the subset group focus group participants

the second item of the "suspicious interaction scale", he/she was trying to get information from

me, age and months in prison were found to be significant. Both indicated a negative correlation.

As age and months in prison increased, agreement with the survey item decreased.

Next, ordinary least squares regression was run with he/she was trying to get information

from me as the dependent variable and the age and months in as independent variables (See

Table 4-5). Neither variable was found to be a significant predictor of the survey item, once the

other variable was controlled. No other regressions were run with the interaction scales using any

of the other three samples, because the variables were not correlated at the bivariate level.

Correlations and Regressions: Correctional Officers' Traits

Correlations were also run in order to examine correctional officer traits (See Table 4-4).

The same six independent variables were used that are listed above. The two trait scales,

"negative trait scale" and "positive trait scale", with their combined eight items, and the criminal

variable were the dependent variables. As with the interaction scales, no significant relationships

were found for the total sample, prison participants or jail-only participants. For focus group

participants, the "positive trait scale", age, race and years of school were found to be significant.

Age had a negative relationship indicating as age increased agreement with the item decreased.










Table 4-3. Correlations of Inmate and Correctional Officer Interactions
Total Sample (N=106) Prison Participants (N=70)
Age Race Years Months Months Crime Age Race Years Months Months Crime
of Out In Type of Out In Type
School School
Suspicious .02 .00 .03 -.00 -.11 -.06 -.07 .11 .10 -.02 -.22 -.02


Interaction Scale
Item 1: He/she
wanted something
Item 2: He/she was
trying to get info
from me
Item 3: He/she was
trying to get info
about me


Negative Interaction
Scale
Item 1: He/she was
trying to get out of
work
Item 2: He/she was
trying to hit on me

Positive Interactions
Scale
Item 1: He/she was
sincere about his/her
interactions
Item 2: He/she was
concerned about my
problems


.04 .07 .09


.05 -.04 .01 .00


-.03 -.02 -.02




-.04 .03 -.06

-.01 -.04 -.08


-.06 .09 -.02


.02 .09


.01 .07 .11


.02 .10


.01 .01 -.07 .14 .17 .01 -.06

-.11 -.11 -.06 .07 .05 -.04 -.25*


-.02




-.19

-.12


-.19


-.09

-.03


-.12


-.04 .08 .04


-.08 -.05 .14 .05

-.05 -.12 .04 -.03


-.07 .05 .18 .10 -.21


.11 -.01 .20


-.16


.09 -.02 .15 .10 -.10


.11 .00 .21 .14 -.20


-.24




-.09

-.12


-.04


-.01

-.11


.10


-.06




-.11

.01


-.18


-.01

-.02


.01


* p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001










Table 4-3. Continued
Jail-only Participants (N= 36) Focus Group Participants (N= 50)
Age Race Years Months Months Crime Age Race Years Months Months Crime
of Out In Type of Out In Type
School School
Suspicious -.13 -.16 -.19 -.17 .16 -.08 -.32* .15 .20 -.15 -.28 .11


Interaction Scale
Item 1: He/she
wanted something
Item 2: He/she was
trying to get info
from me
Item 3: He/she was
trying to get info
about me


Negative Interaction
Scale
Item 1: He/she was
trying to get out of
work
Item 2: He/she was
trying to hit on me


-.03 .00 -.16

-.10 -.18 -.09


-.18 -.19 -.20



-.09 -.15 -.39*

-.05 -.13 -.24


-.10 -.14 -.42*


.12 -.19 .19 .29*


.07 -.29 -.33* .09 .11 -.10


-.02 -.27 .12 .10


-.20 .13 .16 -.14


-.12 -.24 .05 .07 -.13


-.09

-.10


.31 .07 -.07 .15 .18


Positive Interactions
Scale
Item 1: He/she was
sincere about his/her
interactions
Item 2: He/she was
concerned about my
problems


-.27 -.05

-.22 -.04


.38* -.07 .32*


.16 .31


-.25 -.04 .31


.17 -.28


.13 .33 -.02 .31* .11


.04 .31 -.11 .26


-.05

-.14


.05 .16


* p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001










Table 4-4. Correlations of Correctional Officer Traits
Total Sample (N=106) Prison Participants (N=70)
Age Race Years Months Months Crime Age Race Years Months Months Crime
of Out In Type of Out In Type
School School
Negative Trait Scale .02 .13 .02 -.10 -.02 -.00 -.04 .19 -.06 -.14 -.12 .09
Item 1: Drug abuser -.10 -.10 .03 -.09 -.04 -.04 -.09 .19 -.01 -.11 -.09 .04
Item 2: Rude .06 .06 .04 -.05 -.01 .03 .04 .20 -.02 -.07 -.08 .09
Item 3: Cruel .05 .05 -.04 -.12 -.02 -.04 -.04 .13 -.12 -.17 -.13 .04
Criminal Variable -.10 -.14 .09 .05 .01 -.03 -.13 -.04 .13 .06 -.03 .07
Positive Trait Scale -.09 .08 .33** -.09 .01 -.03 -.14 .21 .39** -.16 -.16 -.09
Item 1: Educated -.04 .07 .20 -.14 .08 .12 -.13 .22 .19 -.22 -.04 .17
Item 2: Fair -.16 -.14 .09 -.12 -.16 .11 -.18 -.06 .11 -.16 -.29* .07
Item 3: Patient -.12 .12 .28** -.11 -.03 -.05 -.11 .20 .39** -.16 -.12 -.21
Item 4: Polite -.04 .15 .33** -.10 -.01 -.04 -.08 .23 .39** -.16 -.12 -.09
S Item 5: Wise -.04 .07 .42** .04 .12 -.19 -.01 .19 .52** .02 .01 -.22
Jail-only Participants (N= 36) Focus Group Participants (N=50)
Age Race Years Months Months Crime Age Race Years Months Months Crime
of Out In Type of Out In Type
School School
Negative Trait Scale -.28 .15 .20 -.22 -.01 -.04 -.37* .18 -.11 -.10 -.24 .19
Item 1: Drug abuser -.34 .01 .17 -.27 .12 -.14 -.27 .08 -.06 -.10 -.13 .07
Item 2: Rude -.21 .02 .22 -.21 .02 -.02 -.34* .27 -.05 .03 -.23 .13
Item 3: Cruel -.20 .07 .24 -.22 -.16 -.08 -.28 .15 -.13 .00 -.22 .16
Criminal Variable -.28 -.31 -.03 -.01 -.11 -.14 -.22 -.05 -.10 -.00 -.01 -.06
Positive Trait Scale -.57* -.07 .16 -.00 .19 .17 -.32* .33* .46** -.20 -.15 -.07
Item 1: Educated -.45* -.18 .23 .15 .01 .14 -.34* .28 .27 -.06 -.12 .15
Item 2: Fair -.43* -.30 -.02 .15 .34 .22 -.41 .04 .09 -.25 -.32* .18
Item 3: Patient -.46* .03 -.01 -.13 .22 .23 -.27 .34* .47** -.24 -.08 -.29*
Item 4: Polite -.38* .12 .12 -.01 .15 .12 -.28 .34* .46** -.22 -.05 -.10
Item 5: Wise -.53* -.05 .17 .03 .06 -.08 -.01 .28 .52** -.06 .10 -.25
p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001









Table 4-5. Predicting Correctional Officer Interactions and Traits
Focus Group Participants
DV: He/she was trying to get info from me b B SE
Age -.031 -.232 .022
Months In -.002 -.200 .002

Model R2 .140
Model R2 Adjusted .101
ModelF 3.582*
Model df 2,44

DV: Positive Trait Scale b B SE
Age -.024 -.248 .013
Race .147 .088 .256
Years of School .137* .395 .052

Model R2 .288
Model R2 Adjusted .233
Model F 5.256**
Model df 3,39

DV: Patient b B SE
Race .228 .115 .299
Years of School .136* .372 .054
Offense Type -.424 -.153 .402

Model R2 .266
Model R2 Adjusted .215
Model F 5.190**
Model df 3,43

DV: Polite b B SE
Race .407 .192 .305
Years of School .149* .378 .057

Model R2 .242
Model R2 Adjusted .208
Model F 7.166**
Model df 2,45
* p< .05 ** p<.01 *** p<.001









Race had a positive relationship indicating a correlation with white participants and items that

comprise the "positive trait scale". The relationship was also positive for years of school, so as

years of school increased so did agreement with the item. The third survey item, patient, was

found to have a significant relationship with race, years of school and crime type. There was a

correlation with white and non-violent participants being more likely to agree, and as years of

school increase so did agreement. A correlation was also found for the fourth survey item, polite,

race and years of school. Both had a positive correlation, indicating white participants and an

increase in years of school were more likely to indicate agreement.

Ordinary least squares (OLS) regression was run with the items found to be significantly

related at the bivariate level (See Table 4-5). A model predicting the "positive trait scale" with

age, race and years of school as predictors was run first. Age and race were not found to be

predictors when the others were controlled, but years of school (b= 14) remained significant. The

more years of school, the more likely to agree with the "positive trait scale". Years of school (b=

.15) was also found to be a significant predictor for the dependent variable of patient, while race

and offense type were not significant when the others variables were in the model. The last

regression that was run predicted polite as the dependent variable. Race was found not to be a

significant predictor, while years of school again remained significant. The more years of school

a person had the more likely he was to indicate agreement with the survey item, polite.

The correlations run found that most scales and scale items were not correlated with any of

the dependent variables. For the interaction and trait scales, no correlations were found for the

total sample, prison participants and jail-only participants. It was found that one interaction scale

item and one trait scale with two of its scale items did have significant correlations with some of

the focus group participants' independent variables. Regressions were then run, and the only









significant predictor was years of school for the "positive trait scale" and its two scale items. As

years of school increased so does agreement with positive traits (e.g., patient and polite) being

used to describe correctional officers, suggesting those with more years of school are more likely

to hold favorable views of correctional officers.

When examining the focus group data, the comments describing correctional officers in the

positive are scarce. As previously discussed, most participants did not discuss correctional

officers in a positive manner. The few comments that were made, such as describing them as

caring, came from participants who had at least 12 years of school or higher. This lends credence

to the survey findings, since the focus group participants who did discuss correctional officers in

a positive manner were on the higher range of years of school.

Research Question 2: Methods of Informal Social Control

The second half of the result section of this report hopes to answer the second research

question, 'what methods of informal social control did officers use to control inmates and what

was their impact as experienced by former inmates?' As with the first question, this is

accomplished by first examining how participants responded to questions regarding informal

social control on the survey. The focus group results are examined next, in order to determine

whether they corroborated or perhaps explained the survey results. Results from the correlations

that were run are also included. The final section reports the results from the regressions that

were conducted on items found to be significantly correlated.

As with the first part of the results section, in order to examine how participants responded,

the percentage of participants that responded to the survey items and their mean scores were

examined. All the percent reported are valid percent. The response rates were high for items

pertaining to the second research question, and similar to the response rates for the items

pertaining to the first research question. The total sample had an overall 92% response rate (97









out of 106) or higher, while the focus group participants had the response rate at 92% (46 out of

50) or higher. The jail-only participants had the lowest overall response rate at 81% (29 out of

36) and the prison participants had a 94% highest response rate (66 out of 70) or higher.

Frequencies: Methods of Informal Social Control Scales

The first scale that measured informal social controls experienced by the participants was

the "limit access control scale" (See Table 4-6). The "limit access control scale" had an overall

mean of 2.8 for the total sample, indicating "sometimes", while the focus group participants

(mean= 3.1) score indicated "half the time". The responses options indicated the frequency in

which they experienced methods of informal social control. The prison participants (mean= 2.9)

and jail-only participants (mean= 2.4) had a mean score that also indicated "sometimes". The

first "limit access control scale" item had varying mean scores, with jail-only participants'

(mean= 2.7) mean score indicating "sometimes". Prison participants (mean= 3.9) and the total

sample's (mean= 3.5) mean scores indicated "half the time", while focus groups participants'

(mean= 4.2) mean score indicated "usually". For the remaining three items the mean scores

across all groups indicated "sometimes". The mean scores ranged from 2.0 to 2.9.

In order to examine the reported experiences of the participants with each method of

informal social control, frequencies were run. The responses "half the time", "usually", and

"always" were combined, and those are the response percent reported. The first item of the

"limit access control scale", being forced to rush during eating, had a large percentage of

participants indicating that it occurred half the time or more (See Table 4-6). Over 70% of the

focus group participants (N= 43, 86%), prison participants (N= 55, 78.6%), and the total sample

(N= 72, 71.3%) indicated this method of informal social control had happened to them, while

over 50% of jail-only participants (N= 17, 53.1%) indicated it. The second item, shortened










Table 4-6. Informal Methods of Social Control
Survey Participants Focus Group Participants
Total Sample Prison Participants Jail-only Participants Prison Participants
(N=106) (N=70) (N=36) (N=50)
N % Half Mean N % Half Mean N % Half Mean N % Half the Mean
the time the time the time time or
or more or more or more more


Limit Access
Control Scale
(1 Never, 2
Sometimes, 3 Half
the Time, 4
Usually, 5 Always)
Item 1: Being
forced to rush
during eating
S Item 2: Shortened
access to the yard
Item 3: Reduced
access to smoking
and rec time
Item 4: Reduced
access to the
canteen
a =.77


72 71.3


43.6


37 37.8


34 34.3


55 78.6


2.6 29 43.5

2.6 27 40.3


2.4 27 40.3


17 53.1


15 45.5

10 32.3


7 21.9


43 86.0


23 46.9

22 44.9


21 43.8










Table 4-6. Continued
Survey Participants Focus Group Participants
Total Sample Prison Participants Jail-only Participants Prison Participants
(N=106) (N=70) (N=36) (N=50)
N % Half the Mean N % Half Mean N % Half Mean N % Half Mean
time or the time the time the time
more or more or more or more


Removal Control
Scale
(1 Never, 2
Sometimes, 3 Half
the Time, 4
Usually, 5 Always)
Item 1: Not told
when it was relax
count
Item 2: Being
forced to remain
sitting up during
relax count
Item 3: Not having
the phone be
turned on
Item 4: Not
allowed the full
minutes of phone
usage
A =.67


44 41.5


41 40.6



32 32.3


34 34.0


2.5 30 42.6


2.5 30 42.6



2.3 23 33.8


2.2 20 29.4


14 42.4


11 34.4


2.4 9 25.8


14 43.8


16 42.0


2.1 22 44.0



2.1 16 32.7


13 26.5









access to the yard, received over 40% of each group's participants indicating that this method

had been imposed on them. The focus group participants (N= 23, 46.9%) was the group with the

largest percentage reporting occurrence, followed by the jail-only participants (N= 15, 45.5%).

The remaining two groups, prison participants (N= 29, 43.5%) and the total sample (N= 44,

43.6%) had identical reporting percentages. More focus group participants (N= 22, 44.9%)

reported having experienced the third item, reduced access to smoking and rec time, than did

prison participants (N= 27, 40.3%), the total sample (N= 37, 37.8%) and jail-only participants

(N= 10, 32.3%). The fourth scale item, reduced access to the canteen, saw the most variance in

percentage experiencing half the time or more. Focus group participants (N= 21, 43.8%) reported

the most occurrence, while jail-only participants (N= 7, 21.9%) reported the lowest. Both other

groups, the total sample (N= 34, 34.3%) and prison participants (N= 27, 40.3%) reports of

occurrence fell between the other two groups.

Overall, focus group participants, the prison subset group, were the most likely to report

having experienced the methods of informal social control related to limiting access. Jail-only

participants were least likely to report experiencing the methods, except in the case of the second

item, shortened access to the yard. The total sample and prison participants had similar

percentage of reported occurrences.

The second scale that measured informal social control was the "removal control scale"

(See Table 4-6). The overall mean score for the total sample (mean= 2.4) indicated "sometimes".

Prison participants (mean= 2.5), jail-only participants (mean= 2.2) and focus group participants

(mean= 2.4) mean scores for the "removal control scale" also indicated "sometimes". For all four

items that comprised, all four groups had mean scores that indicated "sometimes" for all four

items that comprise the scale, mean scores range from 2.0 to 2.7.









The responses of "half the time," "usually" and "always" were, once again, combined and

examined. Approximately 40% of participants from all four groups, indicated that they were not

told when it was relax count, the first item. Focus group participants (N= 16, 42%), jail-only

participants (N= 14, 42.4%) and the total sample (N= 44, 41.5%) had the same percentage of

participants saying they experienced the method of control. The remaining group, prison

participants (N= 30, 42.6%), had a slightly higher percentage of participants saying it occurred

half the time or more. The second item, being forced to remain sitting during relax count,

received the largest percentage of participants stating it occurred half the time or more, from the

focus group participants (N= 22, 44%), followed closely by prison participants (N= 30, 42.6%).

Jail-only participants (N= 11, 34.4%) had the lowest percentage of participants expressing they

experienced the method of control, while the total sample's percentage (N= 41, 40.6%) was just

a little larger. Approximately one-third of the prison participants (N= 16, 33.8%) and focus

group participants (N= 16, 32.7%) expressed having experienced the third scale item, not having

the phone be turned on. Slightly fewer of the total sample (N= 32, 32.3%) and even fewer of the

jail-only participants (N= 9, 25.8%) stated experiencing the method. The final item, not allowed

the full minutes of phone usage, had the most variance in percentage of participants having

experienced the control method half the time or more. Jail-only participants (N= 14, 43.8%) had

the most participants expressing occurrence, followed by the total sample (N= 34, 34%). The

remaining groups, prison participants (N= 20, 29.4%) and focus group participants (N= 13,

26.5%), had fewer than 30% of the participants indicating occurrence. The amount of

participants who indicated experiencing the methods of informal control indicating removal of

valued items was comprised of ranged from 26% to 44%, and typically fell in range of the

percentage of the other groups.









Frequencies: Methods of Informal Social Control on Others Scales

The scales that measured methods of informal social control imposed on other inmates and

witnessed by participants were the "limit access control for others scale" and the "removal

control for others scale" (See Table 4-7). As with the previous scales, the percentage of

participants that indicted the response options of "half the time", "usually" and "always" when

asked for the frequency in which they witnessed the particular method of control were examined.

The first scale's overall means indicated "sometimes". The total sample's mean was 2.5, while

the prison participants and focus group participants mean scores were both 2.6. The jail-only

participants' mean score was 2.4. For the first item, being forced to rush during eating, prison

participants (mean= 4.1) had mean scores which indicated "usually", while jail-only participants

had a mean score which indicated "sometimes". The remaining two groups, the total sample

(mean= 3.4) and prison participants (mean= 3.9) had mean scores that indicated "half the time".

For all four groups, the remaining three scale items had mean scores from all four groups that

indicated "sometimes," with the mean scores ranging from 2.0 to 2.8.

The first scale item, being forced to rush during eating, had a large percentage of the total

sample (N= 59, 59.6%), prison participants (N= 51, 76.1%) and focus group participants (N= 38,

79.2%) indicating that they observed this method being utilized on other inmates. A lot fewer

jail-only participants (N= 8, 25%) indicated that experience. The second item, shortened access

to the yard, also had fewer jail-only participants (N= 7, 21.9%) indicating witnessing the method

being used on other inmates than did the total sample (N= 37, 37.4%), prison participants (N=

30, 44.8%) and focus group participants (N= 20, 41.7%). For the third item, reduced access to

smoking and rec time, there was a higher similarity across groups expressing that they had

witnessed this happening more than half the time or more. Prison participants (N=27, 40.9%) and

focus group participants (N= 19, 40.4%) had roughly 40% indicating so, while the total










Table 4-7. Informal Methods of Social Control on Other Inmates
Survey Participants Focus Group Participants
Total Sample Prison Participants Jail-only Participants Prison Participants
(N=106) (N=70) (N=36) (N=50)
N % Half Mean N % Half Mean N % Half Mean N % Half Mean
the time the time the time the time
or more or more or more or more
Limit Access
Control for Others


Scale
(1 Never, 2
Sometimes, 3 Half
the Time, 4
Usually, 5 Always)
Item 1: Being
forced to rush
S during eating
Item 2: Shortened
access to the yard
Item 3: Reduced
access to smoking
and rec time
Item 4: Reduced
access to the
canteen
a =.77


59 59.6


37.4


37 37.8


39 39.4


3.4 51 76.1


2.6 30 44.8

2.6 27 40.9


2.5 29 43.3


8 25.0


7 21.9


2.7 10 31.3


10 31.3


38 79.2


20 41.7

19 40.4


2.0 21 43.8










Table 4-7. Continued
Survey Participants Focus Group Participants
Total Sample Prison Participants Jail-only Participants Prison Participants
(N=106) (N=70) (N=36) (N=50)
N % Half Mean N % Half Mean N % Half Mean N % Half Mean
the time the time the time the time
or more or more or more or more


Removal Control
for Others Scale
(1 Never, 2
Sometimes, 3 Half
the Time, 4
Usually, 5 Always)
Item 1: Not told
when it was relax
count
oo Item 2: Being
forced to remain
sitting up during
relax count
Item 3: Not having
the phone be
turned on
Item 4: Not
allowed the full
minutes of phone
usage
Item 5: Being
yelled at
a=.66


35 35.7


35 35.7


37.1


28 28.9



49 49.5


2.4 25 37.3


2.5 27 40.3



2.4 26 39.4


2.3 21 31.8



3.1 34 50.7


2.5 10 32.3


8 22.6


2.8 10 32.3


2.3 8 22.6



3.1 15 46.9


17 34.7


19 38.8



18 37.5


11 23.4



24 50.0









sample (N= 37, 37.8%) had slightly fewer. The jail-only participants (N= 10, 31.3%), once

again, indicated witnessing the methods being utilized on others the least. The fourth item,

reduced access to the canteen, had the same pattern as the previous item, with some percentages

increased. Prison participants (N=29, 43.3%) and the subset focus group participants (N= 21,

43.8%) had slightly higher than 40% of the participants indicating witnessing the methods being

utilized on other inmates half the time or more, while the total sample (N= 39, 39.4%) had fewer

than 40%. Jail-only participants (N= 10, 31.3%) indicated witnessing the method the least.

Overall, jail-only participants were the least likely to report having witnessed other inmates

being punished by the methods of informal social control. The three other groups had no major

differences among the percentage participants indicating witnessing in comparison with each

other. The percentage of participants that reported witnessing the methods that comprised the

"limit access for others scale" being utilized on other inmates seemed to be similar to the

percentage of participants having reported experiencing the methods found for the "limit access

scale". This appears to indicate there were only minor differences in the percentage of

participants reporting having experienced the method and having witnessed the methods being

used on other inmates.

The second scale, "removal control for others scale", was also meant to measure informal

social control methods (See Table 4-7). The overall mean score for the total sample (mean= 2.8)

and jail-only participants (mean= 2.3) indicated "sometimes". Both other groups, prison

participants (mean= 3.0) and focus group participants (mean= 3.1), mean scores indicated "half

the time". The first four items that constituted the scale mean scores that indicated "sometimes",

with a range of 2.1 to 2.8. For the final item that comprised the scale, the total sample (mean=

3.1), prison participants (mean= 3.1), and focus group participants (mean= 3.2) had mean scores









that indicated "half the time". The jail-only participants (mean= 2.9) mean score indicated

"sometimes".

For the "removal control for others scale", over one-third of the total sample (N= 35, 35.7%),

prison participants (N= 25, 37.3%) and focus group participants (N= 17, 34.7%) indicated that

they had witnessed the first item, not told when it was relax count, being utilized on other

inmates. Jail-only participants (N= 10, 32.3%) had slightly fewer participants indicating so. The

second item, being forced to remain sitting up during relax count, had roughly 40% of the prison

participants (N= 27, 40.3%) and focus group participants (N= 19, 38.8%) indicating they

witnessed it. The remaining two groups, total sample (N= 35, 35.7%) and jail-only participants

(N= 8, 22.6%), had a lower percentage of participants reporting witnessing its use on other

inmates half the time or more. Prison participants (N= 26, 39.4%) had the largest percentage of

participants indicating having witnessed the third item, not having the phone be turned on,

followed by focus group participants (N= 18, 37.5%). The total sample (N= 36, 37.1%) and jail-

only participants (N= 10, 32.3%) had lower levels of percentage indicating witnessing. Roughly

30% of the total sample (N= 28, 28.9%) and prison participants (N= 21, 31.8%) reported

witnessing the fourth item, not allowed the full minutes of phone usage. The remaining groups,

jail-only participants (N= 8, 22.6%) and the subset of focus group participants (N= 11, 23.4%),

reported fewer than 25% of the group witnessed the method utilized on other inmates half the

time or more. The fifth item, being yelled at, received the largest percentage of participants

indicating witnessing correctional officers utilizing the method. Approximately half of the total

sample (N= 49, 49.5%), prison participants (N= 34, 50.7%) and focus group participants (N= 24,

50%) indicated so, while slightly fewer of the jail-only participants (N= 15, 46.9%) did so. In

summary, the prison participants were the most likely to report having witnessed other inmates









being punished through the listed informal social control methods half the time or more, while

jail-only participants were the least likely to report witnessing the methods. The percentage that

reported witnessing the items that comprised the "removal control for others scale" appeared to

indicate there were only minor differences in the percentage of reported witnessing and having

experienced the methods for oneself. The percentages of the "removal control for others scale

seem to fall in range of the percentage of the "removal control scale".

Frequencies: Perceived Effectiveness of Informal Methods of Social Control

The final scale examined was the "perceived effectiveness scale" (See Table 4-8). The scale

had overall mean scores from all four groups, total sample (mean= 2.2), prison participants

(mean= 2.1), jail-only participants (mean= 2.3) and focus group participants (mean= 2.2), that

indicated "a little effective", as did the mean scores for the first item. The first item was not told

when it was relax count, while the second item was being forced to remain sitting up during relax

count. The second items' mean scores for total sample (mean= 2.0) and jail-only participants

(mean= 2.1) indicated "a little effective", while prison participants (mean= 1.9) and focus group

participants' (mean= 1.9) mean scores indicated "not at all effective". The total samples (mean=

2.1), jail-only participants (mean= 2.4) and focus group participants' (mean= 2.0) mean scores

indicated "a little effective" for the third item, while the prison participants' (mean= 1.9) mean

score indicated "not at all effective". The third item was not having the phone be turned on. The

fourth item, not allowed the full minutes of phone usage, had similar mean scores. The total

samples (mean= 2.1), jail-only participants (mean= 2.3) and focus group participants' (mean=

2.0) mean score indicated "a little effective", while the prison participants' (mean= 1.9) mean

score indicated "not at all effective". The fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth items' mean scores

indicated "a little effective" for all four groups. The mean scores ranged from 2.1 to 2.5. The

fifth item was being forced to rush during eating; the sixth item was shortened access to the yard;









Table 4-8. Perceived Effectiveness of Informal Methods of Social Control
Survey Participants Focus Group Participants
Total Sample Prison Participants Jail-only Participants Prison Participants
(N=106) (N=70) (N=36) (N=50)
N % Mean N % Mean N % Mean N % Mean
Effective Effective Effective Effective
or Very or Very or Very or Very
Effective Effective Effective Effective


Perceived
Effectiveness
Scale
(1 Not at all
effective, 2 a
little effective,
3 effective, 4
Very effective)
oo Item 1: Not
told when it
was relax count
Item 2: Being
forced to
remain sitting
up during relax
count
Item 3: Not
having the
phone be
turned on
Item 4: Not
allowed the full
minutes of
phone usage


30 30.6


28 28.6




36 36.4



36 36.4


2.1 19 29.2


2.0 16 23.9




2.1 18 26.9



2.1 21 31.3


2.1 11 33.3


1.9 12 38.7




1.9 18 56.3



1.9 15 46.9


2.1 15 32.6


2.1 12 24.5


13 27.1



16 33.3










Table 4-8. Continued
Survey Participants Focus Group Participants
Total Sample Prison Participants Jail-only Participants Prison Participants
(N=106) (N=70) (N=36) (N=50)
N % Mean N % Mean N % Mean N % Mean
Effective Effective Effective Effective
or Very or Very or Very or Very
Effective Effective Effective Effective
Item 5: Being 34 34.3 2.1 23 34.3 2.1 11 36.7 2.1 17 35.4 2.2


forced to rush
during eating
Item 6:
Shortened
access to the
yard
Item 7:
oo Reduced
00
access to
smoking and
rec time
Item 8:
Reduced
access to the
canteen
Item 9: Being
yelled at
a =.92


40 40.4



42 42.0





42 42.0



34 34.3


25 36.8



28 41.2





29 42.6



20 29.4


15 48.4



14 43.8





13 40.6



14 45.2


19 38.8



20 40.8





21 42.9



14 28.6


28.6









the seventh item was reduced access to smoking and rec time, while the eighth item was reduced

access to the canteen. For the ninth item, being yelled at, the total sample (mean= 2.1) and jail-

only participants' (mean= 2.2) mean scores indicated "a little effective", while the mean score

for the remaining two groups, prison participants (mean= 1.9) and focus group participants

(mean= 1.9), indicated "not at all effective". Across all four groups, there were no major

differences in mean scores for any of the items.

In order to examine the percentage of participants that perceived the scale items as

effective, the response options "effective" and "very effective" were combined. Roughly 30% of

the total sample (N= 30, 30.6%) and prison participants (N= 19, 29.2%) perceived the first item,

not told when it was relax count, to be effective while a slightly higher percentage of jail-only

participants (N= 11, 33.3%) and focus group participants (N= 15, 32.6%) did so (See Table 4-8).

A higher percentage of jail-only participants (N= 12, 38.7%) indicated perceiving the second

item, being forced to remain sitting up during relax count, more effective than the three other

groups, total sample (N= 28, 28.6%), prison participants (N= 16, 23.9%) and the subset focus

group participants (N= 12, 24.5%). For the third item, not having the phone be turned on, the

jail-only participants (N= 18, 56.3%) once again had a higher percentage of participants

indicating the method as being effective. The total sample (N= 36, 36.4%) had the next highest

percentage of participants indicating so, followed by prison participants (N= 18, 26.9%) and

focus groups participants (N= 13, 27.1%). The fourth item, not allowed the full minutes of phone

usage, had a similar pattern as the previous two items with jail-only participants (N= 15, 46.9%)

having the largest percentage. The total sample (N= 36, 36.4%) had the next largest percentage

of participants finding the method effective, followed by focus group participants (N= 16,

33.3%) and prison participants (N= 21, 31.3%). Approximately thirty-five percent of the total










sample (N= 34, 34.3%) and focus group (N= 17, 35.4%) indicated the fifth item, being forced to

rush during eating, was effective or very effective in controlling inmates, while slightly fewer

prison participants (N= 23, 34.3%) indicated so, and slightly more jail-only participants (N= 11,

36.7%) indicated so. Across all groups, the sixth item, shortened access to the yard, had more

participants that indicated the method as being effective or very effective than previous methods.

The jail-only participants (N= 15, 48.4%) had the largest percentage, followed by the total

sample (N= 40, 40.4%). The focus group participants (N= 19, 38.8%) and prison participants

(N= 25, 36.8%) had slightly fewer participants indicating the methods effectiveness. Over 40%

of all four groups, the total sample (N= 42, 42%), prison participants (N= 28, 41.2%), jail-only

participants (N= 14, 43.8%) and focus group participants (N= 20, 40.8%), indicated that the

seventh item, reduced access to smoking and rec time, was effective or very effective in

controlling inmates. The subset focus group participants (N= 21, 42.9%) and prison participants

(N= 29, 42.6%) both had slightly larger percentages of participants indicating the effectiveness

of the eighth item, reduced access to the canteen, than the total sample (N= 42, 42%) and jail-

only participants (N= 13, 40.6%). The ninth and final item, being yelled at, had more differences

than the previous item. Jail-only participants (N= 14, 45.2%) had the largest percentage of

participants indicating effectiveness, followed by the total sample (N= 34, 34.3%). Roughly 30%

of the prison participants (N= 20, 29.4%) and focus group participants (N= 14, 28.6%) perceived

the method as effective in punishing inmates.

Summarizing the results, jail-only participants were the most likely to indicate the informal

social control methods listed as effective, except for the eighth item, reduced access to the

canteen. The remaining three groups typically had a similar percentage of participants indicating

effectiveness. The two items that had the highest percentage of participants indicating









effectiveness across all groups were reduced access to smoking and rec time and reduced access

to the canteen.

Focus Group Data: Methods of Informal Social Control

For the second research question, the focus group results offered minimal support for the

survey findings. Some focus group participants listed having experienced or witnessed one of the

informal social control methods that the survey asked about. When participants were asked,

"what type of things did staff do to control inmates", some of their responses indicated that the

phone was used as methods of control. For example, a 57-year-old white male who served a 5-

year-sentence said "they could turn the phones off'. This was echoed by a 38-year-old black

male who served a 10-year-sentence, who said correctional officers "take the telephone from

you". Another black male who served a 3-year-sentence stated "they wouldn't cut the phone on

sometimes, so you couldn't call out". A participant whose voice was not able to be identified

said that correctional officers used "telephone, chow hall, privilege system" to control inmates.

More interestingly, participants listed other methods of informal control that officers

utilized that were not included in the survey. Access to the television was one of those methods.

For example, a white male from Clearwater stated "they would cut your privileges... television"

while a black male from Gainesville said "they take the TV from you".

Another method of control that was not included in the survey but brought up by a 46-

year-old black male who resided in Gainesville, was access to their mail. He stated, "they

wouldn't give you your mail, they would hold it". A 57-year-old white male from the Clearwater

focus group, shared perhaps the most interesting methods that was not included in the survey. He

described, "jail house loaf, which is every, all the food they would normally get, they put in a

blender. Anything from main course to dessert gets blended together as punishment for throwing

food".









Unfortunately none of the focus group questions asked the participants whether they

perceived the informal social control methods as being effective. Overall, there was minimal

support for the survey results found from the focus groups, perhaps in great part due to the lack

of focus group questions regarding informal social control, which is a limitation of this study.

Most of the participants did not give example of informal social control methods, but some did

and even listed some methods that were not included in the survey.

Correlations and Regressions: Methods of Informal Social Control

After examining the frequencies for measures of informal methods of social control

occurrence across all samples, correlations were examined (See Table 4-9). There were six

independent variables: age, race, years of school, month out, months in, and crime type. The

dependent variables were the "limit access control scale", the "removal control scale" and the

eight total scale items that constituted them. No significant correlations were found for the prison

participants and focus group participants. For the total sample, a significant relationship was

found for the "limit access control scale", years of school and months in prison/jail. Years of

school indicated a negative correlation, meaning as years of school increased, reported

experiences with the scale items decreased. Months in prison/jail had a positive correlation, so as

months in increased so did the reported experiences with scale items. No other significant

relationship was found for the total sample. For the jail-only participants, the first item of the

"limit access control scale" was found to have a significant relationship with age and months out.

The negative correlation indicated as age and months out increased the participants were less

likely to report being forced to rush during eating. The second "limit access control scale" item,

shortened access to the yard, was only found to have a significant relationship for jail-only

participants in age and months out. As in the case with the previous scale item, the correlation

was negative and indicated that as age and months out increased the participants were less likely










Table 4-9. Correlations of Informal Methods of Social Control
Total Sample (N=106) Prison Participants (N=70)
Age Race Years Months Months Crime Age Race Years Months Months Crime
of Out In Type of Out In Type
School School
Limit Access .09 -.16 -.22* -.00 .27* -.06 .04 -.09 -.22 -.04 .18 .01


Control Scale
Item 1: Being
forced to rush during
eating
Item 2: Shortened
access to the yard
Item 3: Reduced
access to smoking
and rec time
Item 4: Reduced
access to the canteen

Removal Control
Scale
Item 1: Not told
when it was relax
count
Item 2: Being forced
to remain sitting up
during relax count
Item 3: Not having
the phone be turned
on
Item 4: Not allowed
the full minutes of
phone usage


.14 -.01 -.12


-.02 -.12 -.03

.03 -.15 -.29**


.12 -.23* -.19


-.16 -.19 -.03


-.21 .02 .19 .06 -.10


-.07 -.08


-.07 -.16


-.19 -.31*


-.07 .02 .06 -.08


.19*

.13


.15 .00


.01 .11 -.12


.08 .02


.10 .04


.19 .02 .10 -.16 -.29*


-.11 -.24* -.10 -.09

.06 -.22 .16 .26*


-.13 -.17 -.09 -.17


.08 -.05


-.06 -.14


.05 -.21


-.10


.01


.20 -.08


* p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001


-.09 -.05 -.14 -.29*


-.11 -.12 -.25*


-.15 -.27* -.08










Table 4-9. Continued
Jail-only Participant (N= 36) Focus Group Participants (N=50)
Age Race Years Months Months Crime Age Race Years Months Months Crime
of Out In Type of Out In Type
School School
Limit Access -.46* -.16 -.21 -.26 -.28 -.13 -.13 -.11 -.24 .19 .11 .12


Control Scale
Item 1: Being
forced to rush during
eating
Item 2: Shortened
access to the yard
Item 3: Reduced
access to smoking
and rec time
Item 4: Reduced
access to the canteen

Removal Control
Scale
Item 1: Not told
when it was relax
count
Item 2: Being forced
to remain sitting up
during relax count
Item 3: Not having
the phone be turned
on
Item 4: Not allowed
the full minutes of
phone usage


-.43* .08 -.24


-.39*


-.48* -.09 .06 -.37*


-.14 -.11


-.03 -.24 -.01 -.04


.05 .10


.19 .01


.06 .06 -.04


-.26


-.33 -.28 .13 .12 -.14


-.14 -.19 -.34*


.06 -.08 -.09 -.32*


-.16 -.29* -.09 -.13


-.42* -.30 .17


.02 .13


.11 -.11


-.42* -.24 .04 .10 -.23


-.20


.03 -.31* .15 .26 .01 -.21


-.16 -.26 -.12


-.39* -.20 .15


-.26


.03 .05 -.12 -.09 -.26


-.31 -.47*


-.20 -.01 -.24 -.11


.00 .16


-.04 -.02


* p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001









Table 4-10. Predicting Informal Methods of Social Control


DV: Limit Access Control Scale
Years of School
Months In


b
.107*
.003*


Total Sample
B
-.231
.252


Jail-only Participants


SE
.047
.001


Model R2
Model R2 Adjusted
Model F
Model df

DV: Being forced to rush during eating
Age
Months Out

Model R2
o Model R2 Adjusted
Model F
Model df

DV: Shortened access to the yard
Age
Months Out

Model R2
Model R2 Adjusted
Model F
Model df
p<.05 ** p<.01 *** p<.001


.110
.089
5.364**
2,87


B
-.401
-.259


SE
.027
.031


b
-.062*
-.047

.296
.242
5.468*
2,26


-.036
-.036


B
-.309
-.264


.220
.162
3.799*
2,27









to report being granted less access to the rec yard. No other significant relationships were found

for the jail-only participants.

To further examine whether the items found to have a significant correlation were

predictors, after other variables were controlled, ordinary least squares (OLS) regressions were

run (See Table 4-10). First, using the total sample, years of school and months in were examined

for their predictive value for the "limit access control scale". In both cases, they were found to be

significant, showing with an increase in years of school (b= -.107) the less likely the total sample

was to indicate experiencing the limit access control survey items. However, as months in

prison/jail (b= .003) increased so did the likelihood that participants indicated experiencing the

methods. Though significance was found, the impact of months in prison/jail on the dependent

variable was very small, almost non-existent. Using the jail-only participants, regressions were

run to determine whether age and months out were predictors of experiencing the method, being

forced to rush during eating. Months out (b= -.047) was not found to be a predictor but age (b= -

.062) was, when both were in the model. As age increased the likelihood of reporting having

experienced the methods decreased. However, the difference was quite small. The final

regression was run, once again, using age and months out of prison/jail but this time as possible

predictors of the method, shortened access to the yard. Neither variable was found to be

predictors at a significant level.

When examining the reported experiences of informal methods of control, there were few

significant relationships found for the total sample and jail-only sample. None were found for the

prison participants and focus group participants. Those relationships were then examined for

their predictive value. In the case of the total sample, years of school was found to be significant

but have a negative relationship with "limit access control scale", while months in was also









found to be significant but have a positive relationship. For the jail-only participants, age was a

predictor for reporting experiencing being forced to rush during eating, with older jail-only

participants being less likely to report experience. The focus group data did not offer any support

for the survey data, since none of the relationships were found to be significant. Also, in

reviewing the focus group data there appeared to be no pattern in the type of responses and type

of respondents1. Respondents ranged in race, age and length of sentence serviced in prison.

Correlations and Regressions: Methods of Informal Social Control on Others

The scales and scale items that measure the reported frequency of witnessing other inmates

being punished by methods of informal social control were also examined (See Table 4-11). The

previously listed six independent items were once again used, and the "limit access control for

others scale" and the "removal control for others scale", with their nine total scale items served

as the dependent variables. No significant relationships were found for prison participants, jail-

only participants and focus group participants when correlations were run. For the total sample,

the first item for the "limit access control for others scale", being forced to rush during eating,

age and months in had a significant correlation, both indicating a positive relationship. The

"removal control for others scale", years of school and months in had a significant correlation.

Years of school had a negative relationship, meaning an increase in years of school the less

reporting of witnessing the scales items, while months in had a positive relationship, meaning as

the amount of months in prison/jail increased so did the reported witnessing of scale items being

used on others.

OLS regression was used to examine whether any of the previously listed items were

significant predictors (See Table 4-12). The first regression used dependent variables, being


1 The answers given during focus groups sessions by participants about methods of informal social control methods
utilized by correctional officers to control inmates were listed in a previous section.












Table 4-11. Correlations of Informal Methods of Social Control for Others
Total Sample (N=106) Prison Participants (N=70)
Age Race Years Months Months Crime Age Race Years Months Months Crime
of Out In Type of Out In Type
School School
Limit Access Control -.07 -.01 .00 .10 -.05 -.16 -.10 .03 -.02 .13 -.17 -.13


for Others Scale
Item 1: Being forced
to rush during eating
Item 2: Shortened
access to the yard
Item 3: Reduced
access to smoking and
rec time
\o Item 4: Reduced
access to the canteen


Removal Control for
Others Scale
Item 1: Not told when
it was relax count
Item 2: Being forced
to remain sitting up
during relax count
Item 3: Not having the
phone be turned on
Item 4: Not allowed
the full minutes of
phone usage
Item 5: Being yelled at


* p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001


.28* -.07 -.11

-.02 -.03 -.28**


-.07 -.11


-.05 -.01

.04 -.02


-.04 -.06

-.06 -.01


-.21* -.01


-.01

.03

-.09


.05


-.00


.07 .01


.34** -.14

.07 -.07


.01 -.06 -.11

-.13 -.03 -.35**


-.12


.18 -.02


.02 -.02 -.02


.09 -.25*


.19 -.14


.10 -.13


.24*


.04 .07 -.11


-.05


.01 -.09


.01 .09 .07

-.00 -.06 -.25*


-.11 .03 -.04


.04 .16 -.05 -.27** -.12 .01 -.02


.06 .05 -.07 .00 -.19 .01 .06


.11 -.12


.02 -.03

.01 -.12


.13 -.25*

.10 -.11


.07 -.15 -.01


.12 -.21* -.08 -.11 -.14


.16 -.13 -.21*


.13 -.11 -.23*


-.17 -.02 -.11 -.27*










Table 4-11. Continued
Jail-only Participant (N= 36) Focus Group Participants (N= 50)
Age Race Years Months Months Crime Age Race Years Months Months Crime
of Out In Type of Out In Type
School School
Limit Access Control -.41* -.02 .09 -.17 -.02 -.18 -.21 .13 -.04 -.02 -.26 -.05


for Others Scale
Item 1: Being forced
to rush during eating
Item 2: Shortened
access to the yard
Item 3: Reduced
access to smoking and
rec time
Item 4: Reduced
access to the canteen

Removal Control for
Others Scale
Item 1: Not told when
it was relax count
Item 2: Being forced
to remain sitting up
during relax count
Item 3: Not having the
phone be turned on
Item 4: Not allowed
the full minutes of
phone usage
Item 5: Being yelled at


* p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001


-.09 .15 -.14

-.32 .12 -.06


-.09

-.23


-.36* -.06


-.30 .00 -.12


-.34 .06 -.13


-.35


-.31

-.10


-.18 .14 .15 -.14


-.13 -.17

-.24 -.01


.56* -.21


-.14

-.13

-.23


-.03


-.18

-.04


-.21 -.22 -.08 -.06

-.11 -.06 .02 -.39*


.18 -.02


-.12 .00 -.19


-.09 .09 -.08 -.25


-.18 -.12 -.12

.10 -.07 .19


.13 -.17


.02 .03 -.03


.09 -.00


.01 -.37* -.10 -.05 -.29*


-.25 -.25 .13 -.07


.08 .03

-.02 -.22

-.17 -.01


-.19 -.31*


.11 -.35 .02 .08 -.08


.02 -.28 -.00 .11 -.02









Table 4-12. Predicting the Reported Witnessing Informal Methods of Social Control
Total Sample
DV: Being forced to rush during eating b B SE
Age .007 .055 .015
Months In .006* .320 .002

Model R2 .125
Model R2 Adjusted .106
Model F 6.591**
Model df 2, 92

DV: Removal Control for Others Scale b B SE
Years of School -.109* -.248 .044
Months In .003* .231 .001

Model R2 .106
Model R2 Adjusted .086
Model F 5.348**
Model df 2,90
* p<.05 ** p<.01 *** p<.001

forced to rush during eating, and age and months in as independent variables. Only months in

prison/jail (b= .006) was found to be a significant predictor, with the more months in the more

likely to report the witnessing of this method being used on other inmates. Significance was

found but the impact of months in prison/jail was almost non-existent. The second regression

found that both independent variables, years of school (b= -.109) and months in (b= .003), were

significant predictors for the "removal control for others scale". With an increase in years of

school there was a decrease in the reported witnessing of scale items, while with an increase in

the amount of time in there was an increase in the reported witnessing. No other regressions were

run since no other significant relationships were found.

There were few significant relationships found when examining the reported witnessing of

informal social control methods being used on other inmates. There were none found for prison

participants, jail-only participants and focus group participants. For the total sample, the

significant relationships that were found were then examined for their predictive value. Months









in was found to be the only significant predictor for witnessing others being forced to rush during

eating, with the participants who have been in longer being more likely to report witnessing. As

previously found, months in prison/jail was found significant but the impact was incredible

small. Years of school and months in were both found to be predictors for the "removal control

for others scale". Years of school had a negative relationship and months in prison/jail had a

positive relationship. Once again, the focus group data did not offer any support for the survey

data. As in the previous case, none of the relationships that were found to be significant were

with the focus group participants and after reviewing the focus group data, there were no obvious

patterns in the type of responses and type of respondents.

Correlations and Regressions: Perceived Effectiveness of Informal Methods of Social
Control

The perceived effectiveness of the informal social control methods were the final items

examined, first for relationships, then for predictive value (See Table 4-13). Six independent

variables were used, and have been previously listed, while the perceived effectiveness scale and

its nine scale items served as the dependent variables. There were no significant relationships

found for the jail-only participants and focus group participants. For the total sample, the first

scale item, being forced to rush during eating, race and years of school had a significant negative

correlation. It appears that non-white participants were more likely to perceive it as effective, as

were individuals who had less years of school. There was also a correlation found between the

fifth item, not told when it was relax count, race and years of school. The relationships were,

once again, negative indicating the same pattern. There were no other significant correlations

found for the total sample. For the prison participants, the only significant relationships that were

found between the fifth item, not told when it was relax count, age and race. The relationships

were both negative, and appeared to indicate that non-white were more likely to perceive the









Table 4-13. Correlations of Perceived Effectiveness of Informal Methods of Social Control
Total Sample (N=106) Prison Participants (N=70)
Age Race Years Months Months Crime Age Race Years Months Months Crime
of Out In Type of Out In Type
School School
Perceived .00 -.28* -.19 .06 -.01 .02 .10 -.38* -.19 .09 .05 .10


Effectiveness Scale
Item 1: Being forced
to rush during eating
Item 2: Shortened
access to the yard
Item 3: Reduced
access to smoking and
rec time
Item 4: Reduced
access to the canteen
c Item 5: Not told when
3 it was relax count
Item 6: Being forced
to remain sitting up
during relax count
Item 7: Not having the
phone be turned on
Item 8: Not allowed
the full minutes of
phone usage
Item 9: Being yelled at


* p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001


.05 -.23* -.21*

-.05 -.21* -.08

.08 -.29* -.12


.08 -.28* -.16

-.03 -.23* -.31**

.12 -.13 -.11


-.07 .01 -.10

.01 -.08 -.15


-.09 -.20 -.11


-.05 .06 -.31*


.00 .00 .07 -.31* -.09

.09 -.04 .08 -.42* -.17


.11 -.02 .10 -.43* -.19


.12 -.02


.06 .09 .06

.08 .11 -.01


.08 .09 .03


-.08 -.32* -.32*

.15 -.18 -.07


.04 .07 -.17

.07 .14 -.19


-.07 .01 .62 .02 .21


.08 .01 .11

.11 .04 .20


.94 .73 .32










Table 4-13. Continued
Jail-only Participants (N=36) Focus Groups Participants (N=50)
Age Race Years Months Months Crime Age Race Years Months Months Crime
of Out In Type of Out In Type
School School
Perceived .04 -.11 -.26 -.06 -.11 -.20 .14 -.55* -.16 .11 -.00 .10


Effectiveness Scale
Item 1: Being forced
to rush during eating
Item 2: Shortened
access to the yard
Item 3: Reduced
access to smoking and
rec time
Item 4: Reduced
access to the canteen
c Item 5: Not told when
W it was relax count
Item 6: Being forced
to remain sitting up
during relax count
Item 7: Not having the
phone be turned on
Item 8: Not allowed
the full minutes of
phone usage
Item 9: Being yelled at


* p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.00


.00 .03 -.16

.03 -.09 -.07


-.19


.17 -.17


.14 .02 .08 -.09


-.11 .12 -.03


.02 -.05


-.29


.24 -.07 -.26


.13 .31 -.12

.09 .08 -.16


.05 -.12 .05


-.19

-.18

.21


-.04

-.27


-.26


-.02


-.30

.01


-.29 .08 -.44*


-.20 .05 -.40* -.05

-.09 .13 -.53* -.16


-.10 .09 -.58* -.17

-.13 .02 -.49* -.34


.08 .03 .07

.07 .08 .01


.24 .02 .09


.24 -.05 .17 -.31*


.09 -.27


.14 -.03


-.22 .19 -.28


-.22 -.09 -.34* -.14


.10 -.14 .07









Table 4-14. Predicting Perceived Effectiveness of Informal Methods of Social Control
Total Sample


DV: Being forced to rush during eating
Race
Years of School

Model R2
Model R2 Adjusted
Model F
Model df

DV: Not told when it was relax count
Race
Years of School

Model R2
Model R2 Adjusted
S Model F
Model df
p<.05 ** p<.01 *** p<.001


-.378
-.077


.072
.051
3.473*
2,90

b
-.303
-.122*

.117
.098
6.039**
2,91


B
-.175
-.153


B
-.155
-.268


Prison Participants


SE
.233
.055


SE
.199
.046


b
-.442
-.100


B
.251
.053


.145
.117
5.178**
2,61


SE
-.223
-.240









method as being effective, while the more years of school a participants had the less likely they

were to perceive the method as being effective.

In order to determine the predictive value, ordinary least squares regression was used (See

Table 4-14). Using the total sample, the survey item, being forced to rush during eating, race and

years of school were first examined. Neither independent variable, race nor years of school, were

found to be significant predictors when in the model together. The second regression examined

race and years of education as predictors for the item, not being told when it was relax count.

Race was not found to be a predicator, but years of school (b= .122) remained significant. As the

years of school increased the perceived effectiveness of not being told when it was relax count

decreased. Using the prison participants, the same dependent and independent variables were

examined. But in the case of prison participants, race and years of school were not found to be

predictors for the perceived effectiveness of not being told when it was relax count. No other

regressions were run, because the variables were not significantly correlated at the bivariate

level.

Examining the perceived effectiveness of informal social control items and the scales

found few significant relationships. Jail-only participants and focus group participants had no

significant relationships at the bivariate level. For the total sample, the significant relationships

were found and then examined for their predictive value in a multivariate level. However, of the

two survey items and two possible predictors, years of school was found to be the only

significant predictor. Participants who reported having received more years of education were

less likely to perceive not being told when it was relax count as effective. For the prison

participants, the one scale item and two possible predictors produced no significant predictors.

The data obtained during the focus group did not offer any support for the data obtained from the









survey. None of the relationships were found to be significant for the focus groups participants

and no focus group questions asked about perceived effectiveness of informal social control

methods.

Summary

This section described the results found during the study. It discussed the findings about

inmate and correctional officer interactions, as well as what traits are used to describe

correctional officers. Focus group data was used to further explain or lend credibility to the

survey data. Next, findings into informal social control methods experienced by inmates or other

inmates were described, as well as the perceived effectiveness of those methods. The focus group

data that pertained to this research question was also discussed. Tables were used to display

data, and direct quotes from the focus group data were also used when applicable.









CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

This is the final section of this study. First, the author discusses a summary of the findings

for both research questions and reviews the previous literature. Then, the author describes the

limitations of the study and makes suggestions for future research. Finally, the author makes

policy suggestions.

Summary of Findings

The first research question was 'what was the prison experience like for former inmates

regarding correctional officers and, what were their interactions with correctional officers like?'.

More often the survey data indicated former inmates viewed their interactions with correctional

officers in a negative light than in a positive light, but in both cases the support was limited.

However, this did not extend to jail-only participants, who were the least likely to view the

interactions in a negative light, and most likely to view interactions with correctional officers as

positive. The subset focus group participants were the most likely to report having unpleasant

interactions with correctional officers. The remaining two groups, the total sample and the prison

participants, generally had slightly lower percentages in agreement than the focus group

participants, but higher than jail-only participants.

Similar survey results were found when examining former inmates' view of correctional

officers' traits. Overall, there was some support found that former inmates were more likely to

agree with traits that described correctional officers negatively than positively. The exception

was jail-only participants, who were more likely to agree with positive traits being used to

describe correctional officers than negative traits. Focus group participants were the most likely

to agree with negative traits describing correctional officers, with the total sample and the

participants having similar but lower percentages in agreement. The most agreement from









participants was for the use of the word "rude" to describe correctional officers. Once again the

findings were limited, since most participants neither agreed nor disagreed with any of the traits,

positive or negative, being used to describe correctional officers.

The results drawn from the focus group discussions reiterated the survey findings. The

number of focus group participants that indicated having negative interactions was greater than

the number of focus group participants indicating positive interactions, but in both cases the

number was small. The focus group participants offered more comments that indicated they felt

correctional officers possessed negative traits. However, there was a little support indicating

some believed correctional officers held positive traits.

Using six demographics variables, correlations and then regressions were run in order to

determine whether any were predictors for the scales measuring officer interactions and scale

items, as well as the trait scales and scale items. From all the scales and scale items and for all

four samples, the only significant predictor was years of school for the "positive trait scale" and

its two scale items (e.g., patient and polite) for focus group participants. It appeared as years of

school increased so did agreement with positive traits being used to describe correctional

officers. The limited amount of focus group data available supported this finding, since those

participants that used positive descriptions to describe correctional officers indicated having

attended at least twelve years of school.

The results from this study offered some support for the previous literature on inmates'

experiences regarding correctional officers and their interactions with them. Previous research

had indicated that the interactions between inmates and correctional officers were mainly

classified as unpleasant and punctuated by distrust (Hemmens & Marquart, 2000; Toch, 1978).

Interactions between inmates and correctional officers are often perceived as disrespectful from









the perspective of inmates (Irwin, 2005). This study found some support for this. Though not

overwhelming, across all samples some participants agreed with survey items that indicated

negative interactions with officers. Previous literature had found that former inmates' perspective

of inmate-staff relations did not vary significantly based on education level, socioeconomic

status, and criminal history, but did so based on race and age (Hemmens & Marquart, 2000).

This study also did not find personal demographic variables to be significant predictors for

perceptions of inmate-staff interactions.

The review of the literature suggested the biggest contributor for negative interactions may

be the negative views and opinions held by each group about one another (Grusky, 1959). It was

found that, as suggested in the literature review, for the most part the former inmates did not hold

positive views of correctional officers (Ross & Richards, 2002; Weinberg, 1942). Inmates often

hold preconceived notions of the correctional officers as a group, which tend to be unfavorable

and marked by suspicion (Grusky, 1959; Toch, 1978). The items that used negative adjectives to

describe correctional officers received some support in the form of agreement from some

participants across all samples, partially supporting previous research.

Not all interactions and correctional officers are viewed as being bad or negative, however.

Inmates may hold favorable views of officers (Hemmens & Marquart, 2000; Hepburn, 1985;

Irwin, 2005). Inmates and staff do not always view each other as opposition (Streets, 1965).

Though not overwhelming, this study did offer some support for this previous research as well.

Across all groups, participants showed some agreement for items that indicated inmates having

positive interactions with inmates, as well as correctional officers holding positive traits.

Overall, this study was able to answer the first research question, 'what was the prison

experience like for former inmates regarding correctional officers and, what were their









interactions with correctional officers like?' by examining the responses of former inmates. It

was found that some participants viewed interactions with correctional officers as negative

experiences, and even fewer viewed the interactions as positive. Similar findings were found for

the views of correctional officers. However, a majority of participants did not indicate having

either negative interactions or holding negative views of correctional officers, or positive

interactions or holding positive views of correctional officers. Though, this study offers some

support for previous research, it suggests an exaggeration on part of the previous literature,

which often paints a picture of extreme dislike and negative experiences with correctional

officers. The respondents in this study were more ambivalent, possibly because they were no

longer dealing with officers daily.

The second research question asked, 'what methods of informal control did officers use to

control inmates and what was their impact as experienced by former inmates?' This study found

some support for the occurrence of each of the nine informal controls discussed in the study, and

some support for the method's perceived effectiveness. In the case of the total sample, prison

participants and focus group participants, roughly one-third of the participants or more reported

experiencing all nine methods of control half the time or more, with the average percentage of

participants being around 42%. The focus group participants were the most likely to report

having experienced the methods. The jail-only participants were slightly less likely to report

experiencing the methods. The survey item, being forced to rush during eating, had the largest

amount of reported agreement across all samples.

In the case of witnessing other inmates being punished through methods of informal social

control, overall the percentage of participants reported witnessing was slightly less than the

percentage of participants that reported experiencing the methods themselves. Typically









approximately 40% of the total sample, prison participants, and focus group participants reported

witnessing the methods being used to control other inmates. Prison participants were the most

likely to report having witnessed other inmates being punished through the listed informal social

control methods half the time or more. Jail-only participants were the least likely to report

witnessing, with an average of 30% indicating having witnessed the methods being used on other

inmates. There appears to be only minor differences in the percentage of participants reporting

having experienced the methods of informal social control and the witnessing the methods being

used on other inmates.

The results for examining the perceived effectiveness of the nine listed informal social

control methods found that the jail-only participants were most likely to indicate the methods as

being effective, with an average of 43% of the participants indicating so. The remaining groups

had a similar percentage of participants indicating effectiveness, with approximately 34% of the

participants indicating effectiveness. The two items that appeared to be found the most effective,

based on the percentage of participants indicating effectiveness, were reduced access to smoking

and rec time and reduced access to the canteen.

There was minimal support for the survey results found from the focus group data due to

focus group questions not specifically asking about methods of informal social control. Most of

the participants did not give examples of informal social control methods, but the few that did

offered support to the survey findings. Participants also listed some informal social control

methods that were not included in the survey, such as limiting access to the television, mail and

the use of "jail house loaf'. Unfortunately none of the focus group questions asked the

participants whether they perceived the informal social control methods as being effective, so the

focus group data can not be used to confirm or deny the survey data.









Regressions were run in order to determine whether any of the six demographic variables

were predictors for the scales and scale items that pertained to the second research question.

There were no significant predictors found for prison participants or focus group participants for

any of the scales and scale items. For the jail-only participants, the only predictor found was age

for reporting experiencing being forced to rush during eating, with older jail-only participants

being less likely to report experience. However, there were more predictors found for the total

sample. For scales and scale items pertaining to the participants' experiences with informal

social control, years of school was found to be significant but have a negative relationship with

"limit access control scale", while months in was also found to be significant but have a positive

relationship. For the witnessing of the methods being used on others, months in prison/jail was

found to be a significant predictor for witnessing others being forced to rush during eating, with

the participants who have been in longer being more likely to report witnessing. Months in was

also found to be a predicator of the "removal control for others scale", as did years of school,

with years of school having a negative relationship and months in having a positive relationship.

The only significant predictor found for the "perceived effectiveness scale" and its survey items

was years in school. Participants who reported having been in more years of school were less

likely to perceive not being told when it was relax count as an effective method of control.

The focus group data did not offer any support for the survey data, since none of the

relationships was found to be significant. Also, in reviewing the focus group data there appeared

to be no pattern in the type of responses and the type of respondents. The participants that

discussed methods of informal social control utilized by officers on them or other inmates varied

in age, length of sentenced served, as well as race. Also, the questions were not written in a way









that would necessarily elicit responses about informal social control methods utilized by

correctional officers or the perceived effectiveness of informal social control methods.

This study offers support for the limited amount of literature regarding the use of informal

social control methods. Previous literature has found that prisons could not operate efficiently if

correctional officers responded to every infraction formally, since the process tends to be time

consuming (Hewitt et al., 1984; Irwin, 2005; Marquart, 1986; Useem & Reisig, 1999).

Correctional officers have the option of choosing to enforce the rules and regulations through

either formal or informal social control methods (Fisher-Giorlando & Jiang, 2000; Marquart,

1986; Poole & Regoli, 1980a; Streets, 1965). Officers report a small fraction of the violations

they actually observe (Hewitt et al., 1984). This suggests that officers may be using informal

social control methods, which are the actions taken by correctional officers in order to discipline

or punish inmates without resorting to official procedures. Correctional officers also may tolerate

minor inmate infractions and sanction inmates in an informal manner that does not require a

great deal of effort and time from their part (Useem & Reisig, 1999). This study found that

former inmates reported being punished though methods of informal social control or witnessing

other inmates being punished through the methods. On average, at least 33% of the participants

indicated experiencing the methods, meaning nearly one out of three inmates had been corrected

through at least one of the methods. The witnessing of informal social control methods being

utilized had similar numbers. These results support previously literature that points to

correctional officers utilizing methods of informal social control as a way to try to control

inmates.

Besides being less of a burden in time and effort for correctional officers, informal social

control methods may also be used since they are perceived to be effective. The correctional









officer might be working based on the assumption that the formal forms of punishment they use

might not make a difference in the inmate's everyday status since the punishment is not

immediate (Sykes, 1958). Informal social control methods tend to be immediate, and remove or

limit access to items or activities the inmate wants to engage in. With inmates having such few

pleasure items or activities, the threat of the removal of those few pleasures or items is a

powerful motivation for compliance with prison rules and regulations (Sykes, 1958). With

inmates being in a position of extreme deprivation, the few privileges and luxury items that they

are able to have become very valuable to them (Irwin, 2005). Though this study did not examine

what made the methods of informal social control effective, it did examine whether the methods

were perceived to be effective. Overall, all methods were found to be effective by nearly one-

fourth of the participants. This study built upon previous literature which had suggested that

correctional officers utilized the informal social control methods since they believed them to be

effective by finding that some former inmates reported the methods to be effective.

By examining the responses from former inmates, this study was able to answer the second

research question which was, 'what methods of informal control did officers use to control

inmates and what was their impact as experienced by former inmates?' It was found that some

participants did report being punished by correctional officers through the use of methods of

informal social control. There were also some participants who reported witnessing other

inmates being punished through methods of informal social control. From the perspective of

former inmates, all the methods had some participants indicating that the methods were effective

in controlling inmates. Unfortunately, the focus group data did not offer much by way of support

for the understanding of informal social control methods use in prison, because no questions

specifically addressed this issue. However, this study offered support for previous research,









which suggested that correctional officers utilized informal methods to control inmates. It would

appear that these methods of control are being utilized in correctional facilities and detention

centers to some extent.

Study Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research

There are limitations associated with the study that limits the generalizability. The first

limitation is that the entire sample was not comprised of participants who had been incarcerated

in a federal or state prison. Participants who had only been housed in jail were included in the

survey. Though not part of the initial target sample, the researcher was able to get access to jail

participants and did not want to lose the opportunity to include them in the study. However, this

greatly limited the generalizability of the study, since there were noticeable differences within

the sample. The sentences served by jail-only participants were shorter than the rest of the

sample, which may have affected the amount of interactions jail-only participants had with

correctional officers and opportunities to experience methods of informal social control. In

addition, jail officers may be different than prison officers.

The second limitation of the study is that not all of the participants participated in focus

groups. Over half of the sample did not participate in a focus group. One group refused, while

another group, comprised of 49 individuals, were not afforded the opportunity to do so because

of inadequate space. The focus group results were very limited in their ability to be generalized

to the sample or beyond. Another limitation that is associated with the focus groups is that not all

focus group participants spoke or offered comments during the group. It was often found that the

same three or four participants spoke, also limiting the ability of the focus group results to

generalize to others.

There were also limitations associated with the questions asked during the focus groups.

There were no direct questions asking about informal social control methods, just general









questions asking about control methods utilized by correctional officers. There were also no

questions asking participants if they perceived the methods of control that correctional officers

implement were effective or what the impact of those methods had. The absence of such

questions did not allow for the thorough examination of informal social control this study had

hoped to accomplish.

Other limitations involved the construction of survey. There were several demographic

variables that should have been included but were not. For example, most of the study

participants indicated having receiving a high school diploma or a GED. However, there was no

measure that asked participants to indicate whether they received their GED while being

incarcerated or while living on the streets. This may be important because the type of inmate

who would try to obtain a GED during his period of incarceration may be a different type of

inmate than one who does not. He may be less likely to have negative interactions or place

himself in a situation that requires the correctional officer to punish or control him. There were

also no measures that allowed for the examination of approximately how much time and

opportunity each inmate had to interact with correctional officers and an inmate's contact with

officers can vary from frequent to very rare (Fisher-Giorlando & Jiang 2000; Grusky, 1959). But

perhaps, more significantly, there were no measures that asked about prior incarceration history.

Inmates who have been incarcerated more than once may have had more opportunities to have

interactions with correctional officers, as well as experience or witness the utilization of informal

social control methods. Also, the type of person who has been incarcerated multiple times is

more than likely a different type of person than someone who has only been incarcerated once.

Lastly, the variable that was meant to measure the custody level of the facilities the participants

were housed at was unable to be used, and is a limitation for the study. Participants seemed









confused about what was being asked. Some listed the name of the facilities they had been

housed in, while others circled the listed example custody level. The variable should have been

split into two separate variables. First, asking participants how many facilities had they been

housed in, and then asking them to list those facilities by name in the order of which they were

housed. This would have allowed the researcher to look up the facilities and verify the custody

levels of the facilities, as well as control for how many facilities a participant had been housed

in. The current study does not allow for the comparison of individuals who had been housed in

many facilities versus just one facility, or for comparison of differences in facility classification

levels.

Another limitation is that the survey only asked participants about eight reactions they

might have had during their interactions with correctional officers. There should have been more

possible reactions or at least an option for the participants to write in the reaction they most

commonly felt during interactions. The same limitation is true for the questions asking

participants about possible correctional officers' traits. There were only ten possible traits listed,

when either more possible traits should have been included or an option for participants to list

some possible traits. Though this study allowed for the examination of nine informal social

control methods, there may be more informal social control methods that correctional officers

utilize. Some focus group participants discussed other methods that correctional officers used.

Perhaps the most obvious informal social control method that was excluded was the removal of

the television. A variable that asked participants about the use of the television as a control

method should have been included as well as an option for participants to list other informal

social control methods they experienced or witnessed being used.









Future research should first address the limitations associated with the study. The sample

should be comprised of only participants who have been incarcerated in a federal or state prison,

or participants who have only been incarcerated in jail. If one wanted to compare the two groups,

a larger sample of both would be required. Also, all participants should be afforded the

opportunity to participate and share in a focus group.

As far as the measures used in the study, future research should expand the focus group

questions and include questions about informal social control methods and what the perceived

effectiveness or impact the methods of control that correctional officers use have. In the future,

the survey should include a variable that indicates whether the participant received his GED in

prison, prior incarceration history, a measure that allows for the examination of how much time

and opportunity each inmate had to interact with correctional officers, a measure for how many

facilities a participant had been housed in, and the names of specific facilities.

Also, future research should try to measure more possible reactions or have an option for

the participants to write in the reaction they most commonly felt during their interactions with

correctional officers. Additional possible correctional officers' trait should also be measured.

The two traits suggested during the focus group, unprofessional and judgmental, should be

included as well as an option for participants to list more possible traits. At a minimum, a

variable that asked participants about the use of the television as a control method should added.

The two other informal social control methods that were suggested during the focus groups were

"jail house loaf' and the withholding of mail might be considered for inclusion in future

research, as well as an option for participants to list other informal social control methods they

experienced or witnessed being used.









Going beyond the current study, future research should also extend into prison or jails.

Inmate and correctional officers' interactions and correctional officers' use of informal social

control methods should be studied from the perspective of current inmates, as well as

correctional officers. Though inmates' perception of correctional officers have been examined

from the perspective of former inmates, examining the responses of current inmates may allow

for different responses than those from former inmates since the interactions and control methods

would be more current and not require participants to draw from their memory (Hemmens &

Marquart, 2000). To date, few studies have explored staffs attitudes and perceptions on

interactions and other aspects of prison life, so there is a need to expand this research to include

correctional officers (Crouch & Alpert, 1980; Hemmens & Marquart, 2000).

The final suggestion for future research is that informal social control methods and their

context for which they occur should as be extended to include female participants. Female

former inmates and inmates may have very different experiences when it comes to inmate and

correctional officer interactions in comparison to male former inmates and inmates (Bloom,

Owen & Covington, 2003). Studies have shown that correctional officers often indicate having a

preference for male inmates, since female inmates often make more demands, more complaints

and are less likely to follow orders (Pollock, 1986; Rasche, 2000). Also males and females have

different styles of communicating (Tannen, 1990). With a preference for male inmates and

differences between communication styles, the possibility that female inmates have a very

different perception of interactions with correctional officers and views of correctional officers is

quite great. More importantly though, the informal social control methods that officers utilize for

controlling female inmates may be different than those used for male inmates. If different









methods of control are being used for females, they need to be identified and effectiveness

examined.

Policy Implications

One of the hopes of this study was for the author to be able to make policy

recommendations. This study examined nine possible methods of informal social control: not

told when it was relax count, being forced to remain sitting up during relax count, not having the

phone be turned on, not allowed the full minutes of phone usage, being forced to rush during

eating, shortened access to the yard, reduced access to smoking and rec time, reduced access to

the canteen and being yelled at. It was found that there was some indication that all methods are

utilized by correctional officers to some degree based on self reported experiences or reported

witnessing of other inmates' experiences. With some evidence that informal methods of social

control already being utilized, prison administrators may want to consider officially

implementing these methods as part of their formal control methods and procedures. Instead of

having corrective consultations (CCs) and disciplinary reports (DRs) being the methods by

which inmates are corrected or punished, have more options officially available for officers to

correct and punish inmates. These informal social control methods offer a "happy-medium" for

situations in which the officer feels the inmate needs to be corrected but the infraction does not

warrant formal punishment. Since the methods are already being utilized to some extent,

including the methods into official procedures may also protect the officers from grievances and

other inmate legal retaliation that claim discrimination on the part of the officer.

Though not overwhelming, a number of participants perceived these methods to be

effective. Typically at least one out of three participants felt the method was effective, and in

most cases the number was higher. This also lends support for their use because at least in some

of the cases the inmates are viewing the method as a punishment. For the method of control to









have an impact, the individual must feel that the punishment is punishment (Sykes, 1958). The

two methods that were found to be perceived as the most effective were reduced access to

smoking and the rec time and reduced access to the canteen. Across all four samples, both

methods received over 40% of the participants indicating they perceived the method to be

effective. Prison administrators may want to allow dorm officers to have a say regarding whether

inmates in their dorms get access to smoking, rec time and the canteen, instead of allowing the

general population to have the same access. It would give the dorm officer more say and control

by being able to use items perceived as a reward or privilege by over 40% of the inmates.

There is evidence that correctional officers already utilize the methods, and some former

inmates did perceive the methods to be effective. Correctional officers already are outnumbered

by inmates, and if the methods are effective in helping control one-third of those inmates, that is

one-third less inmates the correctional officers have to formally sanction. With prison

populations increasing, prison administrators may need to be examining what works for

controlling some inmates versus trying to find the illusive what works for controlling all inmates.

Summary

This study offered an exploratory examination into informal social control methods

utilized by correctional officers and their perceived effectiveness. In order to examine the

circumstances and situations surrounding informal methods of control, inmate and correctional

officers' interactions and correctional officer traits from the perspective of former inmates was

also examined. It was found that some of the participants viewed interactions with correctional

officers as negative experiences and described correctional officers using negative traits, and

even fewer viewed the interactions and traits held by correctional officers as positive. Reviewing

the literature, perhaps there is some exaggeration, which often paints a picture of extreme dislike

and negative experiences from the perspective of inmates on correctional officers. It was also









found that some of the participants did indicate correctional officers use methods of informal

social control to punish or control inmates. From the perspective of former inmates, all the

methods included in the study had some participants that indicated each method was effective in

controlling inmates. Policy suggestions were made following a discussion of the study's

limitations and recommendations for future research. This study only started the examination and

exploration into the use of informal social control methods as part of prison management, much

more is needed.









APPENDIX A
SURVEY

Perceptions of Prison Life

Code Number

Circle or fill in the response that best fits your answer.

1. How old are you? (indicate age)

2. What is your sex? (circle one)
Male Female
1 0

3. How would you describe your race and/or ethnicity? (circle one)
White 1 Hispanic 3

Black/African American 2 Other 4

Specify

4. What is the highest level of education you have obtained? (circle one)
None 1 10th grade 11

1st grade 2 11th grade 12

2nd grade 3 High school 13

3rd grade 4 GED 14

4th grade 5 Some college 15

5th grade 6 Associate's degree 16

6th grade 7 Bachelor's degree 17

7th grade 8 Other 18

8th grade 9
(Specify)
9th grade 10









5. How long since you have been out of prison?

# months


# _years
6. How long were you in prison? (specify number of i,%,nih\ or years)

# months


# years

7. What states) were you incarcerated in?

1.


2.


3.


4.


5.


8. What level of security were the facility (facilities) you were housed in? (minimum,
medium, close, etc.)

1.


2.


3.


4.


5.



5.









9. How long have you resided/did you reside in the half-way house where you live (or lived)?

# months

# _years

10. For your last incarceration, what offenses) were you convicted of? (Please list the offense
carrying the longest sentence first)

1.


2.


3.


4.


5.


6.


7.


8.


9.


10.











Circle the response that best fits your answer. Please remember to
answer these questions based on your last incarceration experience.
Strongly Disagree Unsure Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree
11. Officers 1 2 3 4 5
were more likely
to formally
punish inmates
through
corrective
consultation
(CCs). (circle
one)

12. Officers 1 2 3 4 5
were more likely
to formally
punish inmates
through
disciplinary
reports (DRs).
(circle one)

13. Officers
were more likely 1 2 3 4 5
to informally
punish inmates
through taking
away privileges.
(circle one)

14. Would have 1 2 3 4 5
rather received
informal
sanctions than
formal
sanctions. (circle
one)









Now I would like to know about your experiences during your last
incarceration. Which informal sanctions did YOU receive by
officers? (Circle the response that best fits your answer.)
Never Sometimes Half the Usually Always
Time
15. Not told when it was 1 2 3 4 5
relax count. (circle
one)

16. Being forced to 1 2 3 4 5
remain sitting up during
relax count. (circle one)

17. Not having the 1 2 3 4 5
phone be turned on.
(circle one)

18. Not allowed the full 1 2 3 4 5
minutes of phone usage.
(circle one)

19. Being forced to rush 1 2 3 4 5
during eating. (circle
one)

20. Shortened access to 1 2 3 4 5
the yard. (circle one)


21. Reduced access to 1 2 3 4 5
smoking, and rec time
through not opening the
yard. (circle one)

22. Reduced access to 1 2 3 4 5
the canteen. (circle
one)


23. Being yelled at. 1 2 3 4 5
(circle one)









Now I would like to ask you about how other inmates were treated.
How often were the following informal sanctions utilized by officers
towards OTHER inmates? (Circle the response that best fit your
answer.)
Never Sometimes Half the Usually Always
Time
24. Not being told when 1 2 3 4 5
it was relax count.
(circle one)


25. Being forced to 1 2 3 4 5
remain sitting up during
relax count. (circle one)

26. Not having the 1 2 3 4 5
phone be turned on.
(circle one)

27. Not allowed the full 1 2 3 4 5
minutes of phone usage.
(circle one)

28. Being forced to rush 1 2 3 4 5
during eating. (circle
one)

29. Shortened access to 1 2 3 4 5
the yard. (circle one)

30. Reduced access to 1 2 3 4 5
smoking, and rec time
through not opening the
yard. (circle one)

31. Reduced access to 1 2 3 4 5
the canteen. (circle
one)

32. Being yelled at. 1 2 3 4 5
(circle one)










How effective do you believe the following sanctions were at
informally CONTROLLING THE INMATES during your last
incarceration experience? (Circle the response that best fits your
answer.)
Not at all A Little Effective Very
Effective Effective Effective

33. Not being told when 1 2 3 4
it was relax count.
(circle one)

34. Being forced to 1 2 3 4
remain sitting up during
relax count. (circle one)

35. Not having the 1 2 3 4
phone be turned on.
(circle one)

36. Not allowing the 1 2 3 4
full minutes of phone
usage. (circle one)

37. Being forced to rush 1 2 3 4
during eating. (circle
one)

38. Shortening access to 1 2 3 4
the yard. (circle one)


39. Reducing access to 1 2 3 4
smoking, and rec time
through not opening the
yard. (circle one)

40. Reducing access to 1 2 3 4
the canteen. (circle one)


41. Being yelled at. 1 2 3 4
(circle one)









Correctional officers often interact with inmates for a variety
of reasons. I am interested in knowing why correctional officers
interacted with YOU on an informal level. (Circle the response that
best fits your answer.)
When an officer interacted with me I thought:
Strongly Disagree Unsure Agree Strongly
Disagree Agree

42. He/she wanted something. 1 2 3 4 5
(circle one)


43. He/she was trying to get 1 2 3 4 5
out of work. (circle one)


44. He/she was trying to hit on 1 2 3 4 5
me. (circle one)


45. He/she was trying to get 1 2 3 4 5
information from me. (circle
one)

46. He/she was trying to get 1 2 3 4 5
information about me. (circle
one)

47. He/she was concerned 1 2 3 4 5
about my problems. (circle
one)

48. He/she was sincere in 1 2 3 4 5
his/her interaction. (circle one)


49. He/she was no different 1 2 3 4 5
than anyone else. (circle one)









I felt most officers were: (Circle the response that
answer. For each question, circle one answer.)
Strongly Disagree Unsure
Disagree
50. Educated 1 2 3


best fits your

Agree Strongly
Agree
4 5


51. Criminal


52. Fair


53. Patient

54. Polite

55. Wise


56. Violent

57. Religious

58. Cruel

59. Rude

60. Drug abusers


Finally, we would like to ask you questions about religion. We
are hoping to learn more about the role of religion in prison.
Circle or fill in the response that best fit your answer.

61. How would you describe your religious preference/denomination now? (circle one)


None

Catholic


62. Before you went to prison, how
important was religion in your life?
(circle one)


Not at all
important

1


1 Protestant


2 Other


(Specify)

A little
important


Important


Very
important









63. In the year before you were
incarcerated, how often did you go to
religious services? (circle one)


Never


Seldom


Weekly


More than once a week


Monthly


64. While you were in prison, how
important was religion in your life?
(circle one)


65. How often did you go to
religious services while in prison?
(circle one)


Not at all
important

1


Daily


A little
important


Never


Important Very
important


Weekly


66. Since you left prison, how
important is religion in your life?
(circle one)


67. Since you left prison, how often
do you go to religious services?
(circle one)


Not at all
important

1


More than once a week


More than once a week


Monthly


Seldom


Monthly


Daily


A little
important


Important


Very
important


Never


Weekly


Seldom


Daily









Please tell me how much religion affected your life while you were
incarcerated. Circle the response that best fits your answer.
Strongly Disagree Unsure Agree Strongly
disagree Agree

68. I turned to religion to 1 2 3 4 5
relieve guilt. (circle one)


69. I attended religious 1 2 3 4 5
services to gain access to
outsiders. (circle one)

70. I turned to religion to deal 1 2 3 4 5
with the loss of my freedom.
(circle one)

71. I turned to religion for 1 2 3 4 5
safety. (circle one)


72. I turned to religion to build 1 2 3 4 5
relationships with other
inmates. (circle one)

73. I turned to religion to learn 1 2 3 4 5
a new way of living. (circle
one)

74. I turned to religion because 1 2 3 4 5
of a lack of anything else to
do. (circle one)

75. I turned to religion because 1 2 3 4 5
it reminds me of home. (circle
one)

76. I turned to religion to 1 2 3 4 5
forget I am in prison. (circle
one)









Strongly Disagree Unsure Agree Strongly
disagree Agree

77. I turned to religion to get 1 2 3 4 5
out of work. (circle one)

78. I turned to religion as 1 2 3 4 5
something to do. (circle one)

79. I turned to religion to 1 2 3 4 5
receive privileges. (circle one)

80. I turned to religion because 1 2 3 4 5
staff treated me better. (circle
one)

81. I turned to religion to 1 2 3 4 5
rebuild family relationships.
(circle one)

82. I turned to religion to get 1 2 3 4 5
out of the hot/cold weather.
(circle one)

83. My turning to religion was 1 2 3 4 5
an act. (circle one)









APPENDIX B
FOCUS GROUP QUESTIONS

1. How would you describe your prison experience? (Explain)

2. In your experience, what type of things did staff do to control inmates? (Please explain.
Can you give us some examples?)

3. What were your interactions with staff like? (Examples)

4. What were the interactions between staff and other inmates like?

5. Did officers mess with you? With other inmates? How? Please give us some examples of
how this happened.

6. Did some officers treat you differently than others? How so? Why do you think this
happened? (Explain)

7. When you did something wrong, would you be punished the same way each time? How
were you generally punished? The same as other inmates? Why or why not? (Explain)

8. If you were talking to your friends, how would you describe the staff in the prison where
you were? What about the interactions you had with them?

9. What would you like people who do research on inmate-staff interactions to know that
we have not discussed already?

10. Now I'd like to ask you some questions about your experiences since you have been out
of prison. First, have any of you re-offended since you have been out? If so, what have
you done and why? If not, why not?

11. What do you think will keep you from re-offending in the future? What do you need help
with? (Family, friends, church?)

12. Are you religious? If so, how has this impacted your attitude and experience since you
have left prison?

13. If you are religious, what do you like most about your religion?

14. What do you believe you must do to lead a religious life?

15. Do you feel you have been forgiven? Why do you feel this way?

16. Have you ever claimed to be religious to get benefits from the system (e.g., in prison, to
gain entry to a halfway house, etc.?)

17. Is there anything else you'd like to tell me about your experiences since you left prison?









LIST OF REFERENCES


Austin, J., Bruce, M.A., Carroll, L., McCall, P.L., & Richards, S.C. (2001). The Use of
Incarceration in the United States. Critical Criminology, 10, 17-41.

Bloom, B., Owen, B., & Covington, S. (2003). Gender-Responsive Strategies: Research,
Practice, and Guiding Principles for Women Offenders. Washington, DC: National
Institute of Corrections.

Brown, B.S., DuPont, R.L., Kozel, N.J., & Spevacek, J.D. (1971). Staff Conceptions of Inmate
Characteristics: A Comparison of Treatment and Custodial Staffs at Two Differing
Institutions. Criminology, 9, 316-329.

Craddock, A. (1992). Formal Social Control in Prisons: An Exploratory Examination of the
Custody Classification Process. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 27, 63-84.

Cressey, D.R. (1959). Contradictory Directives in Complex Organizations: The Case of the
Prison. Administrative Science Quarterly, 4, 1-9.

Crouch, B.M., & Alpert, G.P. (1980). Prison Guards' Attitudes Toward Components of the
Criminal Justice System. Criminology, 18, 227-236.

Fisher-Giorlando, M., & Jiang, S. (2000). Race and Disciplinary Reports: An Empirical Study of
Correctional Officers. Sociological Spectrum, 20, 169- 194.

Frey, J. H., & Fontana, A. (1991). The group interview in social research. The Social Science
Journal, 28, 174-187.

Grusky, 0. (1959). Role Conflict in Organization: A Study of Prison Camp Officials.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 3, 452-472.

Hazelrigg, L.E. (1967). An Examination of the Accuracy and Relevance of Staff Perceptions of
the Inmate in the Correctional Institution. The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and
Police Science, 58, 204-210.

Hemmens, C., & Marquart, J.W. (2000). Friend or Foe? Race, Age, and Inmate Perceptions of
Inmate-Staff Relations. Journal of Criminal Justice, 28, 297-312.

Hepburn, J.R. (1985). The Exercise of Power in Coercive Organizations: A Study of Prison
Guards. Criminology, 23, 145-164.

Hepburn, J.R., & Albonetti, C. (1980). Role Conflict in Correctional Institutions: An Empirical
Examination of the Treatment-Custody Dilemma Among Correctional Staff.
Criminology, 17, 445-459.

Hewitt, J.D., Poole, E.D., & Regoli, R.M. (1984). Self-reported and Observed Rule-breaking in
Prison: A look at Disciplinary Response. Justice Quarterly, 1, 437-447.










Hoene, Paula M. 2000. Keeping the Streets Safe: Truth in Sentencing and Public Opinion in
Idaho. The Justice Professional, 12, 291-304.

Irwin, J. (1970). The Felon. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Irwin, J. (2005). The Warehouse Prison: Disposal of the New Dangerous Class. Los Angeles,
California: Roxbury Publishing Company.

Jurik, N.C. (1985). Individual and Organizational Determinants of Correctional Officer Attitudes
Toward Inmates. Criminology, 23, 523-539.

Jurik, N.C., & Musheno, M.C. (1986). The Internal Crisis of Corrections: Professionalism and
the Work Environment. Justice Quarterly, 3, 457-480.

Kitzinger, J. (1994). The Methodology of Focus Groups: The Importance of Interaction between
Research Participants. Sociology of Health and illness, 16, 103-121.

Mayer, G.R. (2001). Antisocial Behavior: Its Causes and Prevention within Our Schools.
Education and Treatment of Children, 24, 414-429.

McLafferty, I. (2004). Focus Group Interviews as a Data Collecting Strategy. Journal of
Advanced Nursing, 48, 187-194.

Morgan, D.L. (1996). Focus Groups. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 129-152.

Morgan, D.L., & Spanish, M. T. (1984). Focus Groups: A Tool for Qualitative Research.
Qualitative Sociology, 7, 253-269.

Morris, N. (1995). The Contemporary Prison: 1965-Present. In N. Morris and D. J. Rothman
(Eds.), The Oxford History of The Prison: The Practice of Punishment in Western Society
(pp. 202-231). New York: Oxford University Press.

Marquart, J.W. (1986). Prison Guards and the Use of Physical Coercion as a Mechanism of
Prisoner Control. Criminology, 24, 347-366.

Pollock, J. (1986). Sex and Supervision: Guarding Male andFemale Inmates. New York, NY:
Greenwood Press.

Poole, E.D, & Regoli, R.M. (1980a). Role Stress, Custody Orientation, and Disciplinary Actions:
A Study of Prison Guards. Criminology 18(2):215-226.

Poole, E.D., & Regoli, R.M. (1980b). Examining the Impact of Professionalism on Cynicism,
Role Conflict, and Work Alienation Among Prison Guards. Criminal Justice Review, 5,
57-65.









Rasche, C.E. (2000). The Dislike of Female Offenders among Correctional Officers: Need for
Special Training. In R. Muraskin (Ed.), It's a Crime: Women and Justice (pp. 237-252).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Richards, S.C., & Ross, J.L. (2001). Introducing the New School of Convict Criminology. Social
Justice, 28, 177-190.

Ross, J.I., & Richards, S.C. (2002). Behind Bars: Surviving Prison. Indianapolis, IN: Alpha
Books

Senese, J.D., (1991). Communications and Inmate Management: Interactions among Jail
Employees. Journal of Criminal Justice, 19, 151-163.

Smithson, J. (2000). Using and Analysing Focus Groups: Limitations and Possibilities.
International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 3, 103-119.

Streets, D. (1965). The Inmate Group in Custodial and Treatment Settings. American
Sociological Review, 30, 40-55.

Sykes, G. (1956). The Corruption of Authority and Rehabilitation. Social Forces, 34, 257-262.

Sykes, G. (1958). The Society of Captives. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Tannen, D. (1990). You Just Don't Understand: Men and Women in Conversation. New York,
NY: William Morrow.

Terry, C.M. (2004). Managing Prisoners as Problem Populations and the Evolving Nature of
Imprisonment: A Convict Perspective. Critical Criminology, 12, 43-66.

Toch, H. (1978). Is a "Correctional Officer," By Any Other Name, a "Screw"? Criminal Justice
Review, 3, 19-35.

Toch, H. (1992). Living in Prison: The Ecology of Survival. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.

U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Program Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2007). Prison
Statistics. Retrieved on March 22, 2007, Revised on January 21, 2007, from the World
Wide Web: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/prisons.htm

Useem, B., & Reisig, M.D. (1999). Collective Action in Prisons: Protests, Disturbances, and
Riots. Criminology, 37, 735- 759.

Warr, Deborah. (2005). It was Fun...But We Don't Usually Talk about These Things: Analyzing
Sociable Interaction in Focus Groups. Qualitative Inquiry, 11, 200-225.










Weinberg, S.K. (1942). Aspects of the Prison's Social Structure. The American Journal of
Sociology, 47, 717-726.

Wuensch, K. (2005). Principal Components Analysis-SPSS. Retrieved on September 23, 2007,
Updated on August 17, 2007, from the World Wide Web:
http://core.ecu.edu/psyc/wuenschk/MV/FA/PCA.doc

Zald, M.N. (1962). Power Balance and Staff Conflict in Correctional Institutions. Administrative
Science Quarterly, 4, 22-49.









BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Saskia Daniele Santos earned her Bachelor of Science degree in psychology and Bachelor

of Arts in criminology in 2003 from the University of Florida. Following two years working

within the Florida prison system, she entered the graduate program in the Department of

Criminology, Law and Society at the University of Florida in the fall of 2005 where she earned

her Master of Arts degree in 2007.





PAGE 1

1 EX-INMATES PERSPECTIVES ON INFORMAL METHODS OF CONTROL UTILIZED BY CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS By SASKIA DANIELE SANTOS A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2007

PAGE 2

2 2007 Saskia Daniele Santos

PAGE 3

3 To my brother, Alex

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank the m embers of this thesis committee: Dr. Jodi Lane, Dr. Angela R. Gover, and Dr. Lonn Lanza-Kaduce. I was incredibly lucky to ha ve a committee comprised of truly exceptional people, who offered endless amounts of support and guidance. I especially thank my mentor and thesis chair, Dr Jodi Lane. This project would not have been po ssible without Dr. Lanes effort, time and willingness to direct this thesis. I owe many thanks to both of my parents for their constant love and encouragement and I am indebted to Robert French for always reminding me it was possible.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................4 LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. ..........7 ABSTRACT.....................................................................................................................................8 CHAP TER 1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................10 2 LITERATURE REVIEW.......................................................................................................12 The Prison Experience and Staff............................................................................................ 12 Interaction Type One: Exerting Control.......................................................................... 13 Interaction Type Two: Gain ing Privileges and Possessions ............................................ 14 Causes for the Interactions..............................................................................................15 Officers views of inmates....................................................................................... 15 Inmates views of correctional officers.................................................................... 17 Methods of Control.................................................................................................................19 Formal Methods of Social Control.................................................................................. 19 Informal Methods of Social Control................................................................................ 20 Method Effectiveness......................................................................................................22 Summary.................................................................................................................................24 3 STUDY METHODS...............................................................................................................25 Study Location........................................................................................................................25 Sample....................................................................................................................................27 Total Sample................................................................................................................... .28 Prison Participants...........................................................................................................31 Jail-only Participants.......................................................................................................32 Focus Group Participants................................................................................................34 Data Collection.......................................................................................................................35 Focus Groups...................................................................................................................36 Surveys............................................................................................................................40 Measures.................................................................................................................................41 Focus Group Questions...................................................................................................41 Survey..............................................................................................................................42 Participant Protection......................................................................................................... .....44 Variables.................................................................................................................................44 Dependent Variables....................................................................................................... 44 Independent Variables.....................................................................................................52 Analysis....................................................................................................................... ...........53 Summary.................................................................................................................................54

PAGE 6

6 4 RESULTS...............................................................................................................................56 Research Question 1: Experien ce with Correctional Officers ................................................56 Frequencies: Correctional Officer and Inm ate Interactions Scales................................. 56 Frequencies: Correctional Officers Traits Scales........................................................... 62 Focus Group Data: Experience w ith Correctional Officers ............................................ 66 Correlations and Regressions: Correctiona l Officer and Inm ate Interactions................. 69 Correlations and Regressions: Co rrectional Officers Traits .......................................... 69 Research Question 2: Methods of Informal Social Control....................................................75 Frequencies: Methods of Info rm al Social Control Scales............................................... 76 Frequencies: Methods of Informal Social Control on Others S cales.............................. 81 Frequencies: Perceived Effectiveness of Infor mal Methods of Social Control..............86 Focus Group Data: Methods of Inform al Social Control................................................ 91 Correlations and Regressions: Methods of Informal Social Control............................... 92 Correlations and Regressions: Methods of Infor mal Social Control on Others.............. 97 Correlations and Regressions: Perceived E ffectiveness of Inform al Methods of Social Control............................................................................................................101 Summary...............................................................................................................................106 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS................................................................................ 107 Summary of Findings........................................................................................................... 107 Study Limitations and Suggesti ons f or Future Research...................................................... 115 Policy Implications...............................................................................................................120 Summary...............................................................................................................................121 APPENDIX A SURVEY..............................................................................................................................123 B FOCUS GROUP QUESTIONS............................................................................................ 135 LIST OF REFERENCES.............................................................................................................136 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.......................................................................................................140

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 3-1 Participants by Locations.................................................................................................. .26 3-2 Sample Characteristics..................................................................................................... ..29 3-3 Types of Groups Held........................................................................................................38 3-4 Focus Group Questions...................................................................................................... 39 4-1 Inmate and Correctional Officer Interactions.................................................................... 57 4-2 Correctional Officer Traits.................................................................................................63 4-3 Correlations of Inmate and Co rrectional Officer Interactions ...........................................70 4-4 Correlations of Correctional Officer Traits........................................................................ 72 4-5 Predicting Correctional Offi cer Interactions and Traits ..................................................... 73 4-6 Informal Methods of Social Control.................................................................................. 77 4-7 Informal Methods of Social Control on Other Inmates..................................................... 82 4-8 Perceived Effectiveness of Info r mal Methods of Social Control......................................87 4-9 Correlations of Informal Methods of Social Control.........................................................93 4-10 Predicting Informal Methods of Social Control................................................................. 95 4-11 Correlations of Informal Methods of Social Control for Others........................................ 98 4-12 Predicting the Reported Witnessing In for mal Methods of Social Control......................100 4-13 Correlations of Perceived Effectiveness of Inform al Methods of Social Control........... 102 4-14 Predicting Perceived Effectiveness of Infor mal Methods of Social Control...................104

PAGE 8

8 Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts EX-INMATES PERSPECTIVES ON INFORMAL METHODS OF CONTROL UTILIZED BY CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS By Saskia Daniele Santos December 2007 Chair: Jodi Lane Major: Criminology, Law and Society Within every prison in the United States th ere are more inmates than officers; yet correctional officers are required to maintain c ontrol. They utilize several methods, formal and informal, to control inmates. Research into informal social control methods utilized by correctional officers has been scar ce but has indicated these methods are essential for prisons to operate efficiently. This study examined, from th e perspectives of 106 former inmates, nine methods of informal social control as well as the context in which they occur, such as inmate and correctional officers interactions Participants responded to ques tions measuring perceptions of inmate and correctional officers interaction and correctional officer s traits, perceived frequencies of use of informal social control methods and effec tiveness, as well as questions measuring demographic and personal information. Fifty participants also took part in focus groups. Frequencies were run to examine particip ants agreement with survey items and linear regression models were al so estimated to identify possible predictors of agreement with survey items. Some of the participants viewed interactions with correctional officers as negative experiences and described correctional officers us ing negative traits, and even fewer viewed the interactions and traits held by correctional officers as positive. A limited number of the participants indicated that corr ectional officers use methods of informal social control to punish

PAGE 9

9 or control inmates, and from thei r perspective all the methods in cluded in the study were viewed as being effective in controlling inmates to some extent. Also, recommendations for future research and possible policy recommendation are made.

PAGE 10

10 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Sykes referred to prison as a society within a soci ety (Sykes, 1958). Prisons have their own norm s and values for those who live and work w ithin them. The inner workings of a prison are not usually deemed to be a strange and uncharted area of research. Many works of literature as well as a number of research projects have ex amined the American prison system and its many facets. However, when it comes to examining the methods correctional officer s utilize in order to control inmates, little has been done in examin ing informal social cont rol methods. Correctional officers hold most discretionary au thority in granting rewards and inflicting punishments, leaving the inmates little opportunity to ignore correctional officers demands for conformity and discipline (Hepburn, 1985; Sykes, 1958). Correctional officers utilize two methods of control: formal and informal (Fisher-Giorlando & Jia ng, 2000; Marquart, 1986). Formal methods leave an official record of the action taken by the offi cer, while informal methods do not leave a record (Fisher-Giorlando & Jiang, 2000). This study hopes to examine informal methods of control utilized by correctional officers. The past several decades have seen a rise in prison populations. In 2005 there were 2,193,798 inmates housed in prisons or jails in th e United States alone (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2007). This was a 2.7% increase from the end of 2004. Though the annual growth from 2004 to 2005 is less than the average growth rate of 3.3%, it still means that for every 100,000 U.S. residents there are approximately 491 prison inmates (Austin, Bruce, Carroll, McCall & Richards, 2001; Bureau of Justice Stat istics, 2007). As the prison population continues to grow, the need for examination of the prison sy stem also continues to grow. Researchers have found that experiences during pris on affect an individuals acti ons and behaviors upon release.

PAGE 11

11 With so many individuals bei ng incarcerated, the importance of this research is pronounced, since most of the individuals currently incarcerated will eventually be rel eased back into society. This study hopes to examine what types of info rmal social control methods are utilized by correctional officers and the impact of those methods. However, in order to fully examine informal social control methods an additional research question was added. The author felt that it was important to place informal social control me thods and their use in context. This will be accomplished by examining the prison experience of former inmates and their interactions with correctional officers and the treatment they received from officers. The research questions for the study are: What was the prison experience like for former inmates regarding correctional officers and what were their interactions with correctional officers like? What methods of informal control did officer s use to control inmates and what was their impact as experienced by former inmates? This study hopes to contribute to the current literature by first adding to the sparse literature regarding informal soci al control. This study will be an intensive examination into informal social control, examining nine po ssible methods of social control utilized by correctional officers. The second contribution this study hopes to add to the literature is examining the impact of social control methods. Both formal and informal methods are utilized within prisons, but there has been limited research done on the impact of these methods. This study will allow for the impact of informal social control to be explained by measuring former inmates perceptions of method effectiveness. The third and final contributi on to the literature is that this study will make policy suggestions. The literature regarding the examination of social control methods appears to contain little to no policy implications. This study hopes to be able to suggest policy by being able to share which, if any, methods of informal social control are effective, taken from a former inmates perspective.

PAGE 12

12 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Social con trol within prisons has been a research topic for several decades, but most of the literature is comprised of studies focusing on formal social control (Marquart, 1986). The literature regarding informal soci al control methods is sparse. So, to fully understand it and its use, one will have to examine the circumstances and situations surroundi ng informal methods of control. First, this study examin es the literature relating to in mates experiences with staff by looking at what types of inte ractions are most common betw een correctional officers and inmates. This literature review also examines the causes of the interactions. Once the prison experience regarding prison staff is discussed, informal social c ontrol methods are more clearly defined and possible reasons for their effectiveness are then examined. The Prison Experience and Staff The first purpose of this study is to gain a better understandi ng of the prison experience for an inm ate when it comes to prison staff1. In order to do so, one must realize that prisons are a place of, deadening routine punctuated by bursts of fear and violence (Morris, 1995, pp. 202). The daily life of an inmate is routine and rarely changes. Part of this daily routine involves interactions with officers. Depending on the f acility, contact with officers will vary from frequent to very rare (Fisher-Giorlando & Ji ang 2000; Grusky, 1959). Correctional officers and inmate interactions are bound by the prison environm ent in that they mainly evolve as a function of the prison itself, such as control and discipline (Poole & Regoli, 1980b; Senese, 1991). One of those functions of prison is that authoritie s are given almost ultimate power (Cressey, 1959; Morris 1995; Poole & Regoli, 1980b; Terry, 2004). They hold power over almost every aspect of the inmates life (Sykes, 1958). Th is is believed to be necessa ry for the safety of society 1 Correctional officer and staff are used interchangeably throughout this manuscript.

PAGE 13

13 (Hepburn, 1985). Prison authorities dictate when inmates will do things such as eat, shower, go to the bathroom, have access to the recreation2 yard, talk on the phone, and even visit with family. They also dictate where inmates will live and work, or even if an inmate will have a work assignment. But people or agencies that have complete power over others often use every opportunity to remind their subord inates that they possess near ly unlimited power and control over them (Toch, 1992). They do this especially in instances that are trivia l or petty (Terry, 2004; Toch, 1992). Nowhere is this truer than in prisons. Interaction Type One: Exerting Control Interactions between correctional officers and inm ates are often based on officers exerting their seemingly unlimited power and control ove r inmates (Brown, DuPont, Kozel & Spevacek, 1971; Zald, 1962). Inmates feel that correctional officers may use any and every opportunity to remind them that they are in complete control. Perhaps the best example of officers utilizing ultimate control over inmates is through the enfo rcement of minor rules. These rules tend to intrude into the ordinary practices and routines of an inmates life and originate from an authority greater than a dorm correctional officer such as the Florida Legislature (Hepburn & Albonetti, 1980; Irwin, 2005). Typically inmates find th em to be frustrating because it is difficult to know all the rules and to be able to comply with all of them (Irwin, 2005). Policies or rules that are unclear are likely to cause a decrease in compliance because individuals may be unclear as to what is and is not acceptable behavior (Mayer, 2001). The lack of compliance, precipitated by unclear rules, is likely to cause an increase in the use of more punitive sanctions (Mayer, 2001). So, petty rules may in fact contribute to noncompliance by inmates. Officers might be caught in a cycle where they must decide to enforce rules that could 2 Recreation yard will be termed rec yard for the rest of the report, since this is the terminology typically used within prisons.

PAGE 14

14 contribute to more conflict and a lack of compliance. They may be trying to suppress the very activity that prison policies a nd rules helped to create (S kyes, 1958). The interactions surrounding these rules are viewed as antagonistic since the inmate is viewed as noncompliant by the officer while the officer is viewed as pe tty by the inmate. The inmate may view him or herself as a victim being picked on by a correctio nal officer enforcing petty rules. This may be especially true since correctional officers enforcement of these rules tends to be inconsistent and arbitrary (Irwin, 2005). Officers of ten address the inmates in a manner that is perceived as disrespectful (Irwin, 2005). This may lead the inmate to participate in frequent disputes or confrontations with correctional officers (Toc h, 1992). The officer, on the other hand, may then use the inmates behavior as justification for fu rther repressive measures, including the way the officer addresses the inmate, gives the inmate orde rs or responds to the in mates requests (Irwin, 2005; Sykes, 1958). Also in the interactions betw een the two sides, officers may also try to demean inmates and the cycle of antagonism is continued due to both sides (Irwin, 2005; Weinberg, 1942). This is not to say that all officers participate in such behaviors or that all interactions with officers are unpleasant. Some offi cers will enforce rules but do not bother to enforce the petty ones (Hewitt, Poole & Regoli, 1984 ; Irwin, 2005; Marquart, 1986). Th ese same officers also tend to be consistent in their enforcement of the rule s, and consistent in th eir lack of petty rule enforcement (Irwin, 2005). It is important to note al so that not all officers speak to inmates in a disrespectful and demeaning manner. However, many do, which causes this type of interaction to be a common experience for inmates. Interaction Type Two: Gainin g Privileges and Possessions Another interaction that occurs between inm ates and officers is one that is typically instigated by inmates. Many inmates may interact with officers in order to increase their

PAGE 15

15 privileges or material posse ssions (Irwin, 2005; Sykes, 1956; Weinberg, 1942). Correctional officers hold nearly all the power within the pr ison walls, which also includes privileges and possessions. For example, correctional officers can determine whether a particular inmate receives a bunk under a fan or one that receives no air circulation. They have the ability to allow an inmate to work in the shade or work in the hot sun. Realizing that th e officers have nearly complete control over their lives, inmates may inte ract with an officer in order to increase their comfort of living. They may interact with the offi cer in ways that will wi n them favor or try to convey to the officer that they are not going to be a problem for that offi cer (Sykes, 1956). These types of interactions may be view ed by the officers as manipulative. Causes for the Interactions Research sh ows that the inter actions between inmates and correctional officers can mainly be classified as unpleasant and punctuated by distrust (Hemmens & Marquart, 2000; Toch, 1978). Interactions are typically in regard to rules and regulations that are considered to be petty by inmates. The biggest contribut or to these interactions between correctional officers and inmates appears to be the views and opinions held by each. If an individual holds a negative view of a group, every interaction he or she will have with that group will be influenced by those negative views (Grusky, 1959). For exam ple, if an individual is susp icious of a particular ethnic group, every interaction he or sh e has with a person of that et hnic group will be viewed with suspicion. In the case of corre ctional officers and inmates, both groups have preconceived notions of the opposite group, which tend to be unfavorable and marked by suspicion (Grusky, 1959; Toch, 1978). Officers views of inmates Correctional officers have a shared culture (Crouch & Alpert, 1980; Irwin, 2005). This cultu re is mainly comprised of common attitudes and beliefs, which include a shared derogatory

PAGE 16

16 attitude towards inmates. Inmates are usually viewed as being wort hless, untrustworthy, manipulative, aggressive and disrespectful (Bro wn et al., 1971; Irwin, 2005). If inmates are constantly attempting to increase their priv ileges and material possessions through their interactions with correctional officers, the offi cers may begin to view all interactions with inmates as attempts to manipulate them (Sykes, 1956). Correctional officer s also typically see inmates as vicious, cons, and criminal sc um (Ross & Richards, 2002, pp. 47; Terry, 2004; Weinberg, 1942). The majority of officers do not empathize with in mates, and hold little respect for them as credible and decent human beings (Hazelrigg, 1967; Irwin, 2005). Of course, officers may see individual inmates as having different, mo re favorable characteristics, but they tend to most often view inmates unfavorably. Ther e is some evidence that certain personal characteristics such as race and ethnicity may impact an officers attitude toward inmates, but other charactertics like gende r and level of education will not (Jurik, 1985). The views held by correctional officers are beli eved to be developed during the orientation or training process. Staff is trai ned to mistrust and remain social ly distant from inmates perhaps as a method to prevent staff from having inap propriate relationships or arrangements with inmates (Hepburn & Albonetti, 1980; Irwin, 2005). Also, if inmates are trying to obtain material possessions or privileges through their interactions with correctional officers, administrators may want correctional officers to view all interactions with suspici on and distrust. Jurik and Musheno (1986) found that correctional officer s reported that they were pena lized by senior officers if they tried adapting a service orientation, which woul d be more favorable towards inmates. Prison administrators appear to have a vested interest in maintaining an us versus them mentality among officers. So as new correctional officers b ecome indoctrinated into the informal officer

PAGE 17

17 culture, they begin to distrust and hate inmate s (Irwin, 2005). This unfavorable view of inmates influences how correctional officers interact with inmates. Inmates views of correctional officers As is true f or correctional officers, inmates interactions with correctional officers are often guided by their opinions of officer s as well. However, the inmates perceptions of inmate-staff interactions and opinions of staff have been understudied in comparis on to the correctional officers perception of intera ctions and opinions (Hemmens & Marquart, 2000). Taken from what has been examined, it is believed that wh en inmates evaluate officers, they base their opinions on four characteristic s: fairness, consistency, stri ngency and empathy (Irwin, 2005). Fairness is deemed the most important characteristic, and involves enforcement of the rules (Irwin, 2005). Naturally officers who tend to not en force rules, which could be deemed petty, are seen as fair. The characteristic of consistency is evaluated by whether the officer maintains the same rule enforcement every day (Irwin, 2005). Officers who change their level of enforcement would be viewed as inconsistent, which is not favorable (Hepburn, 1985). Stringency refers to the level of supervision an officer utilizes ( Irwin, 2005). Officers who are more lax in their supervision will be held in higher regard than those who take an active stance in supervision. The final characteristic that correc tional officers are evaluated on is empathy. This is evaluated by whether the officer treats inmates with respect, which is measured by how they refer to inmates, give them orders and respond to inmates request s (Irwin, 2005). If inmates view an officer as being fair, consistent, non-stringent and empath ic, they would probably believe most of their interactions with that offi cer to be favorable. However, inmates often hold less than favorab le views of correcti onal officers (Ross & Richards, 2002; Weinberg, 1942). They see offi cers as authoritaria n and stupid (Ross & Richards, 2002). Most inmates hate correctional officers and view the officers as hated soldiers

PAGE 18

18 guarding prisoners of a foreign army (Irw in, 2005; Ross & Richards, 2002, pp.47). In classifying correctional officers, the most co mmon category is chicken shit assholes (Irwin, 2005, pp. 68). Through the routines and experiences inmates endure while in prison, their sense of punishment increases (Irwin, 1970). With corr ectional officers holding the power over the inmate that leads to those experiences and dail y routines, the inmate soon despises them for having so much control. Often, an officer is automatically hated by inmates. As an inmate becomes more familiar with an officer it is possible he or she may be gin to hold favorable views towards that officer (Hemmens & Marquart, 2000; He pburn, 1985; Irwin, 2005). There is also evidence indicating that age of the inmate is closely related to the perception of staff and interactions with staff, with younger inmates reporting having more difficulty w ith staff in comparison to older inmates (Hemmens & Marquart, 2000). The officer could be gin to gain respect after showing inmates that they possess the qu alities previously disc ussed: fairness, consis tency, non-stringent and empathy (Irwin, 2005). Another way officers can be vi ewed favorably by inmates is if they form some sort of special or illegal arrangement w ith inmates (Irwin, 2005; Weinberg, 1942). If an officer provides an inmate with items or privileges that violate rules and regulations, the officer may become liked. Interactions between the two groups can be fr equent. They typically involve the officer enforcing rules and regulations that are considered petty, or involve inmates trying to obtain privileges or possessions from officers. Each grou p generally holds a less th an favorable view of the other, which is exacerbated by these two type s of interactions. Officers distrust inmates due to their attempts to manipulate staff in order to obtain sought after item s or services; inmates despise officers for using their unlimited power to enforce trivial rules. Though there are always

PAGE 19

19 exceptions, most inmates prison experiences are unpleasant when it comes to officer interactions and their treatment by correctional officers. Methods of Control The second purpose of this paper is to exam ine the informal social control methods utilized by correctional officers and to a ssess possible reasons for their impact on inmates. As stated previously, correctional officers have almost complete power over inmates and often use every opportunity to remind inmates that they posse ss nearly unlimited power and control (Toch, 1992). They do this by enforcing rules and regulations that may be deemed as trivial or petty by inmates. Once the officer has defined the inmates action as a violation of a rule, they have the discretion as to whether to intervene, and how to discipline in mate if he or she does decide to intervene (Poole & Regoli, 1980a). The manner in which they may choose to enforce these rules and regulations could be through formal and info rmal social control methods (Fisher-Giorlando & Jiang, 2000; Marquart, 1986; Streets, 1965). Formal Methods of Social Control Ross (1901/1969) defined m ethods of formal soci al control as sanctions designed to carry out policy. They are implemented without regard to those who are the object s of control (as cited in Craddock, 1992). Social methods have also be en defined as official reactions by the prison system concerning the behavior of an inma te (Craddock, 1992; Fisher-Giorlando & Jiang, 2000). Though official reaction was not de fined, for the purposes of this paper official reactions are measures taken by correctional officers that can be officially tracked, such as the formal disciplinary procedures (Fis her-Giorlando & Jiang, 2000; Marquart, 1986). In the Florida Department of Corrections those measures would be disciplinary repo rts (DRs) and corrective consultations (CCs). Corrective consultations are the less punitive of the two and do not typically result in sanctions singularly. They are written reports that indi cate the inmate was warned or

PAGE 20

20 corrected regarding his or her behavior. One must receive two or more CCs in order to be sanctioned, while sanctions are given for only one DR. Disciplinary reports, also known as incident reports, are more formal reports written by correctional officers in response to a violation of prison rules (Fisher-Giorlando & Jiang, 2000; Ross & Richards, 2002). The punishments that one may receive from a discip linary report can range from loss of 30 days gaintime3 to 90 days in solitary confinement (Ross & Richards, 2002). Prison administrators establish formal polic ies and procedures (C raddock, 1992) such as methods of enforcing rules and regulations. DRs and CCs are formal proc edures used by officers enforcing prison rules. When an inmate receives a DR or a CC, it is reflected also on his or her official Department of Corrections record. Numer ous infractions or certai n types of infractions can prohibit individuals from being e ligible for good adjustment transfers4, work release and certain job assignments. The utilization of form al social control methods by an officer will hardly ever come under scrutiny and are seldom re versed during the formal review process since it is the officially designated method of controll ing inmates. However, formal social control may not always be utilized due to the time required to fill out paperwork. Also, officers may not deem the infraction worthy of official reaction, while st ill believing it requires some response. In some cases officers may utilize informal social control methods instead. Informal Methods of Social Control While form al social control methods are offi cial reactions to an inmates behavior, informal social control methods are unofficial re actions to an inmates behavior. These methods are not official Department of Corrections polic ies and procedures. Since correctional officers 3 Gaintime refers to credit which allows inmates to earn a day or more off the end of their sentence for each day they served with good behavior (Hoene, 2000). Gaintime has also been referred to as good time credit. 4 Good adjustment transfers are when inmates are transferred to an institutio n they have requested based on their appropriate behavior at their current institution.

PAGE 21

21 are to maintain order through the en forcement of institutional rules, they have discretion as to how to enforce them, formally or informally (Poole & Regoli, 1980a). Informal social control methods are the actions taken by correctional offi cers in order to discip line or punish inmates without resorting to offi cial procedures. Informal social control methods tend to be difficult to monitor, since they do not leave a paper trail as a DR or CC would. They also tend to cover rule violations that do not draw the attention of others as a major violation would. For example, a person having a contraband pen would not draw attention from others, such as other inmates or the officers superiors that a person having a co ntraband sweatshirt might. The dorm officer may feel more inclined to formally sanction the indi vidual with the contraband sweatshirt rather than the one who had a contraband pen that no one else noticed. One may be able, through examining the l iterature regarding a nother hierarchical environment like schools, to more clearly unders tand informal social control methods. When students misbehave, teachers exercise control ov er their classroom (Toch, 1992). They can do so by sending students to the principa l, which would be a formal social control method. They can also choose to control the misbehaving student on their own in an informal manner. This could include assigning extra homework, having the student stand at the back of the line, or other similar forms of discipline. The hope of the teache r is to exert his or he r control in such a way the student will behave in the manner the teacher would like. Prisons have very similar practices. In order for prisons to operate efficiently, correctional officers cannot respond to every infraction forma lly (Hewitt et al., 1984; Irwin, 2005; Marquart, 1986; Useem & Reisig, 1999). The process for fo rmal social control methods may be time consuming and tedious. Correctional officers may tolerate minor inmate infractions, such as stealing food and gambling and sanc tion them in a manner that does not require a great deal of

PAGE 22

22 effort (Useem & Reisig, 1999). In cases such as these, officers will ut ilize other forms of sanctioning rather than utilizing CCs and DRs. They may have inmates perform tasks that are not part of their typical job assignment such as pi cking up cigarette butts. Co rrectional officers may also remove certain privileges or access to privileges as a form of control. For instance, television viewing may be used as a form of in formal social control th rough its allowance or denial. Access to weight-lifting equipment may also be used in this manner. Methods such as these may allow officers to refrain from forma lly sanctioning an inmate, which could result in loss of gaintime or being sent to confinem ent. The informal methods may punish inmates immediately where as formal methods may take a longer period of time. An inmate may not register right away that he has lo st 10 days of gaintime whereas he will notice right away that he is being told to leave the canteen line and that he are not going to have access to canteen items for that day. As is true with te achers and students, officers exert their control of inmates by such informal methods. Method Effectiveness The use of infor mal social control rests on wh ether or not the techni ques have an impact. Officers rely on the assumption that the techniques they utilize have an impact in some way or they would not utilize them. The officers might al so be working based on the assumption that the formal forms of punishment they use might not ma ke a difference in the inmates everyday status (Sykes, 1958). An inmate may not be affected by formal methods of control since he has enough time remaining on his sentence that would allow hi m to still obtain his early release date through gaintime. Therefore, they may be lieve that formal methods of c ontrol may not be effective in controlling the inmate. If a person is serving a ma ndatory sentence, he or she would not receive gaintime and the loss of gaintime would not impact this person due to he or she being required to serve the mandatory sentence regardless of gaintim e awarded. In order for punishment to be seen

PAGE 23

23 as a true reprimand, the person being punished must see it as such (Sykes, 1958). In the case of prisons, inmates must feel that the sanction th e officer is imposing upon them is punishment. For the method of control to have an impact, whether it is the promise of rewards or the threat of punishment, the individual must feel that the re wards are indeed rewards and the punishment is punishment (Sykes, 1958). An inmate may conform to the orders and demands of officers because he or she wants to avoid punishment or to receive rewards (Toch, 1992). In addition, the idea of reward and punishment ma y vary from person to person. In prisons today it has been argued that control thr ough the use of rewards and punishments is defective since th e reward side has been largel y stripped away (Sykes, 1958). However, it can also be argued that since inmates receive fewer rewards or privileges, that these few things may be more valuable to them as rewards. The fear of losing such items through correctional officers removal may be a very e ffective method of contro l. The threat of the removal of those few pleasures or items is a pow erful motivation to conform to prison rules and regulations (Sykes, 1958). The items that inmates see as privileges in clude any increased sense of freedom. Pleasure items include access to a library, whether it is a re gular library or a law library, educational unit, weight-lifting area, rec yard so one can go walki ng or jogging, as well as access to a television (Ross & Richards, 2002; Sykes, 1956). The phone is another privilege that is important to inmates, because for some the phone is the only method of contact with their families (Ross & Richards, 2002). Inmates also vi ew the canteen, also known as a commissary, as a privilege and a place to obtain basic and wanted items. Inmates can purchase stationery, toiletries, clothing and other such items. Perhaps the most sought afte r items are the food items, which typically are generic brands of cookies, crackers, candies, and canned foods, esp ecially fish (i.e. tuna, salmon,

PAGE 24

24 and sardines) (Ross & Richards, 2002). With inmates being in a position of extreme deprivation the few privileges and luxury items that they are able to have become very valuable to them (Irwin, 2005). Informal methods of social control utilized by officers include methods by which officers will remove privileges and methods that will add tasks or sanctions to inmates. They are likely to be effective if the inmate perceives the item be ing removed as a privilege or valuable and the sanction being imposed as a punishment. Summary Inm ates experiences regarding staff and thei r treatment by staff often are not pleasant ones. Typical inmate and officer interactions revolve around the enforcement of rules and regulations, or inmates trying to obtain privileges and material possessions. These interactions are guided by unfavorable opinions of the opposi ng side. Correctional officers utilize two forms of control methods: formal and informal. Informal methods of social control are likely to have an impact due to the inmates having few rights and privileges (Ross & Richards, 2002). The hope, in reviewing the literature, was to more fully understand the pris on experience regarding interactions with staff and inmates and the treat ment received by inmates from staff. In addition, the aim was to elaborate the methods of informal social control utilized by correctional officers and the impact of those methods.

PAGE 25

25 CHAPTER 3 STUDY METHODS This section describes the m ethodology this study utilized. First, the author first discusses the locations where the sample was drawn. Then, the author describes the target sample population. Next, the author discus ses data collection methods, then gives a description of the measuring instruments: focus gr oup questions and a survey. This is followed by a brief section on the measures taken to protect participants. Fina lly, the author describes the variables and data analysis techniques utilized. Study Location Participants were recruited from half-way houses and transitional programs throughout North Central Florida (See Table 3-1). The halfway houses and transitional programs were identified by obtaining their names on the Wo rld Wide Web or through recommendations from individuals currently working within the criminal justice system. Half-way houses and transitional programs were contacted by phone, a nd the researcher asked to speak with the director or manager of the half -way house or transitional program. The researcher then described the research project and asked if the director wa s willing to allow the researcher access to the residents of the half-way house or transitional pr ogram. The researcher typically faxed a copy of the informed consent and a description of the st udy procedures, including a statement that halfway house or transitional program staff members could not be pr esent during the focus group or survey administration. Some directors or managers did not require or requ est a copy, and in those cases, the researcher indicated the policy and procedures du ring the phone conversation. The half-way houses and transitional programs can be separated into two categories: faithbased and non-faith-based. Nine of the groups were conducted in faith-based half-way

PAGE 26

26 Table 3-1. Participants by Locations Racial Distribution Focus Group City Location Number of People Age Range (years) Black White Other 1. House of Hope Gainesville Living room of halfway house 4 Males 3246 3 1 2. Salvation Army: Red Shield Lodge Jacksonville Room next to kitchen in the Salvation Army building 9 Males 3856 7 2 3. Prisoners of Christ Jacksonville Room of local church 12 Males 3062 4 7 1 4. Prisoners of Christ Jacksonville Kitchen of half-way houses business office 5 Males* 38 67 4 1 5. Salvation Army: Red Shield Lodge Jacksonville Room of Salvation Army building 7 Males 31-59 6 1 6. Prisoners of Christ Jacksonville Room of local church 6 Males 30-58 3 3 7. THORM Inc Ministries Jacksonville Living room of halfway house 5 Males 31-45 4 1 8. Center of Hope Clearwater Group room of halfway house 3 Males 45-57 3 9. Pinellas Ex-Offender Reentry Coalition Clearwater Hallway of Pinellas Criminal Courthouse 49 Males 18-49 20 26 3 10. Salvation Army: Red Shield Lodge Jacksonville Room of Salvation Army building 7 Males 38-46 2 5 Missing survey from one pa rticipant in this group

PAGE 27

27 houses or transitional programs. The only group that can be classified as non-faith-based was Group 9, which was a county run re-entry progra m. All the half-way houses or transitional programs that were faith-based were centered upon the Christian faith. However, there was much variation in terms of the required level of commitment to the religion on the part of the individual. For some of the faith-based half-w ay houses or transitional programs, the residents were only required to declare that they were spir itual before being granted access to the services. Other half-way houses or transitional programs re quired the residents to be interviewed by the director. He or she then establ ished whether the level of faith in a person was sufficient for the house. The type of offenders allowed into the half-way houses or transitional program varied. All the half-way houses and transitional programs allo wed property and drug offenders to utilize the services. Some also allowed violent offenders to participate, while others allowed both sex offenders and violent offenders. The structures fo r the houses where the data were collected vary from very involved in the former inmates lives (e.g., helping with job placement, transportation, obtaining a drivers license) to only providing individuals a place to sleep and eat. Some of the half-way houses and transitional programs allowe d individuals to remain there throughout the day and emphasized the house as more of a home. One of the houses did not allow residents to remain in the house during the day and only pr ovided them with a place to sleep and eat breakfast and dinner. Sample The target sam ple population for this study was male former inmates who had been incarcerated within the last five years in a correcti onal or detention facility that currently live in the State of Florida. The actual sample was compri sed of males, who curren tly reside in the State of Florida and had been incarcerat ed in a state or federal pris on and individuals who had been

PAGE 28

28 only incarcerated in county jail. The two groups were referred to as prison participants, indicating these individuals ha d been incarcerated in a pris on (N= 70) and jail-only participants, which indicted th ese individuals had only been incar cerated in jail and never in a state or federal prison (N= 36). There was also a subset group from the total sample, which was comprised of individuals who participated in both a focus group and survey. It is explained later as to why not all participants participated in focus groups. The group of individuals who participated in a focus group was referred to as focus group part icipants (N= 50). All individuals in this group had been housed in a st ate or federal correctiona l or detention facility within the last five years. The demographics of the total sample are first discussed, proceeded by the prison participants, jail-only participants, and lastly, the focu s group participants (See Table 3-2). Total Sample The total sample was comprised of 106 m ales w ho were former inmates in either prison or jail. All participants were older than 18, with the average age of participants being approximately 38 years old. The age range of participants was 18 to 67 years of age. The total sample was comprised of approximately 49% black (52 indi viduals), 47% white (49 individuals), and 4% other (4 individuals). The average school years attended was 11.7. The range was 2 years of education to 16 years. Most participants indi cated receiving a high sc hool diploma or General Equivalency Diploma (GED). The sample was comp rised of people who have been out of prison as long as 204 months (17 years) and as shor t as 1 day, with averag e being approximately 12 months. The average sentence of the sample served was 61 months (5 years and 1 months), with the shortest sentence having b een 3 months and the longest 3 36 months (28 years). Based on self-report, almost the entire sample was comprised of individuals who have been housed at a

PAGE 29

29Table 3-2. Sample Characteristics Total Sample Prison Participants Jailonly Participants Focus Group Participants N= 106 Percent N= 70 Percent N= 36 Percent N= 50 Percent Age Total Responses 10599.16998.63610049 98 Missing Responses 1.911.400 1 2 Average Age 37.9 42.8 28.4 45 Age Range 18 to 67 19 to 67 18 to 46 30 to 67 Median Age 39 43 25.5 45 Mode Age 38 38 20 38 Race Total Responses 10599.1701003597.250100 Missing Responses 1.90012.8 0 0 Black 5249.53854.31438.926 52 White 4946.62941.42055.622 44 Other 43.834.312.8 2 4 Education Total Responses 10397.26998.63494.449 98 Missing Responses 32.811.425.6 1 2 Average (in years) 11.7 11.7 11.7 11.5 Range (in years) 2 to 16 2 to 16 7 to 16 2 to 16 Median (in years) 12 12 12 12 Mode (in years) 12 12 12 12 Time Since Release Total Responses 10397.2701003391.750100 Missing Responses 32.80038.3 0 0 Average (in months) 11.7 14.7 5.4 .5.3 Range (in months) .0 to 204 .0 to 204 .5 to 36 .0 to 60 Median (in months) 3 2 3 2 Mode (in months) 1 1 3 1

PAGE 30

30Table 3-2. Continued Total Sample Prison Participants Jailonly Participants Focus Group Participants N= 106 Percent N= 70 Percent N= 36 Percent N= 50 Percent Length of Sentence Served Total Responses 10397.2 70 100 3391.750100 Missing Responses 32.8 0 0 38.3 0 0 Average (in months) 61.0 87.1 5.8 95.4 Range (in months) 3 to 336 5 to 336 3 to 10 5 to 336 Median (in months) 30 48.3 6 57.5 Mode (in months) 5 36 5 60 States Incarcerated Total Responses 106100 70 100 3610050100 Missing Responses 00 0 0 00 0 0 Florida Only 9993.4 69 98.6 3610046 92 Florida & 1 Additional State 43.8 4 5.7 00 3 6 Florida & 2 Additional States 21.9 2 2.9 00 0 0 Another State Only 1.9 1 1.4 00 1 2 Most Serious Offense Total Responses 10599.1 69 98.6 3610049 98 Missing Responses 1.9 1 1.4 00 1 2 Drug 2624.5 14 20 1233.3 8 16 Property 3230.2 26 37.1 616.719 38 Violent 2624.5 19 27.1 719.414 28 Violator of Probation 1312.3 6 8.6 719.4 4 8 Other 87.3 4 5.7 411.1 4 8

PAGE 31

31 correctional or detention center in the State of Florida at some point and time, with only one participant who had not. Four par ticipants had served a prison sent ence in an additional state to Florida, while two participants had served a pris on sentence in two additi onal states to Florida. The total sample was comprised of approximate ly 24% drug offenders (26 individuals), 30% property offenders (32 individuals ), 24% violent offenders (26 i ndividuals), 12% violators of probation or parole (13 individua ls), and 7% other types of o ffenders (8 individuals). Prison Participants Data were c ollected from 70 former inmates1, all of whom were male. Prison participants were all older than 18, with the average age of the prison participant being approximately 43 years old. The age range of participants was 19 to 67 years of age. The prison participants sample was comprised of approximately 55% blac k (38 individuals), 41% white (29 individuals), and 4% other (3 individuals), which happen to be all be Hispanic. The average school years attended was 11.7. The range was 2 years of educations (2nd grade) to 16 years (receiving a Bachelors degree). As with the total sample, mo st prison participants i ndicated having received a high school diploma or GED. T hough all those who participated in the study had been released from a correctional or detention center within the last five year s, some individuals had been released from prison over five years age. For ex ample, an individual may have been released from prison 15 years age but was released from jail 1 year age. The average time since release was approximately 15 months prior to particip ating in the study. However, the sample was comprised of people who have been out of prison as long as 204 months (17 years) and as short as 1 day. The average sentence of the prison participants served was 87 months (7 years and 3 months), with the shortest sentence having been 5 months and the longest 336 months (28 years). 1 The total number of former inmates is actually 71, but due to researcher error one of the participants survey was destroyed prior to the data being entered.

PAGE 32

32 Almost the entire prison participant sample was comprised of individuals who have been housed by the Florida Department of Corrections. Only one participant did not serv e time in Florida at all but in West Virginia. Four participants ha d served a prison sentence in another state in addition to Florida, while two part icipants had served a prison se ntence in two other states as well as Florida. The states in which the individua ls served an additional sentence or two included Alabama, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Georgia, Maryland and West Virginia. The sample was comprised of approximately 20% drug offenders (14 individuals), 37% property offenders (26 individuals), 27% violen t offenders (19 individuals), 8% vi olators of probation or parole (6 individuals), and 6% other types of offenders (4 individuals) (e .g., driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol, molestati on, arson, and gun charges). The demographics of the prison participants were similar to those of the total sample in age and education. On average, the prison particip ant group was comprised of slightly more black participants, individuals who ha d been released from prison lo nger (approximately 3 months longer), served longer sentences (over two years longer), and committed property offenses. Jail-only Participants There were 36 jail-only particip ants, all of whom had been in carcerated in the sam e central Florida county jail. These partic ipants had participated in a re -entry program that began while they were incarcerated and conti nued after their release. The pr ogram was not open to all jail inmates. Those in the program were selected based on their offense, criminal history and willingness to participate. During their time in ja il they participated in activities meant to reduce recidivism and ease re-entry back into societ y, such as counseling se ssions, substance abuse treatment, job placement training and educational cl asses. While in jail they were housed in the same dorm-like wing of the county jail. The jail-o nly participants were also all older than 18, with the average age of the jail-only participan t being approximately 28 years old. The age range

PAGE 33

33 of the jail-only participant was 18 to 46 years of age. Approximate ly 39% of the jail-only sample was black (14 individuals), and 56% was white (2 0 individuals). Roughly 3% (1 individual) of the sample was listed as other (i.e., Asian). The average school years attended was 11.7. The range was 7 years of education (7th grade) to 16 years (receiving B achelors Degree). Most jailonly participants indicated havi ng received a high school diploma or GED. The jail-only participants of the study we re released from jail w ithin the last five year s, with the average time since release being approximately 5 months prio r to study participation. The jail-only sample was comprised of people who have been out of ja il as long as 3 years and as short as 2 weeks. The average sentence of the jail-only sample serv ed was almost 6 months. The shortest sentence was 3 months and the longest 10 months. Based on self-report survey data, the entire jail-only sample was comprised of individuals who had onl y been housed at a Central Florida County Jail. None of the jail-only participants indicated that they had been incarcerated in another state or county. The jail-only sample was comprised of approximately 33% drug offenders (12 individuals), 17% property offenders (6 individuals), 19% viol ent offenders (7 individuals), 19% violators of probation or parole (7 individuals), and 11% other types of offenders (4 individuals) (e.g., violating a domestic violence injunction, provid ing a false ID to a law enforcement officer, failure to appear at a court event, and possession of firearm). The demographics of the jail-only participan ts were only similar to those of the total sample and the prison participants in education. The jail-only participan t group was comprised of more white participants, individuals who had been released from jail more recently (approximately 7 months less than total sample, 9 m onths less that prison participants), served significantly shorter sentences (4 and half years less than total sample, over 6 years less than prisons participants). The jail-only group was also more likely to have committed a violation of

PAGE 34

34 probation or another offense, such as violated court orders, an d was less likely to have been convicted of a property or violent offense than th e total sample and prison participants. The jailonly participants were also more likely to have been convicted of a drug offense than prison participants and the total sample. There were more differences in the jail-only participant sample in comparison to the total sample, than there were with the prison participant sample and total sample. Focus Group Participants The focus group participants was a subset group of the prison partic ipants. There were 50 focus group participants, all of whom were al l older than 18, with the average age being approxim ately 45 years old. The age range of the group was 30 to 67 years of age. Approximately 52% of the focus group sample wa s black (26 individual s), and 44% was white (22 individuals). Roughly 4% of the sample was lis ted as other (2 individu als) (i.e. Hispanic). The average school years attended was 11.5. The range was 2 years of education (2nd grade) to 16 years (receiving Bachelors Degree). As the case with the other groups, most focus group participants indicated they had received a high school dipl oma or GED. The focus group participants of the study were released from a detention or co rrectional facility within the last five years, with the average time since release approximately 5 months prior to participating in the study. The focus group sample was comprised of people who have been out of prison as long as 5 years and as short as 1 day. The average sentence of the focus group sample served was 95 months, with the shortest sentence being 5 m onths and the longest 336 months. The focus group participant sample was comprised of indivi duals who have been housed by the Florida Department of Corrections, with only one particip ant who had not served time in Florida. Three participants had served a prison sentence in an other in addition to Florida. The focus group sample was comprised of approximately 16% drug offenders (8 individuals), 38% property

PAGE 35

35 offenders (19 individuals), 28% violent offenders (14 individuals), 8% vi olators of probation or parole (4 individuals), and 8% other types of offenders (4 individuals). The demographics of the focus group participants, as was the case with the jail-only participants, were only similar to those of the total sample in education. The focus group participant group was comprised of more black participants, indi viduals who had been released from prison longer ago (approximately 7 months), and served longer sentences (3 years). The focus group participants were also more likely to have committed a propert y or violent offense, and were less likely to have been convicted of a drug offense. The focus group participants demographics were generally similar to the pris on participants demographics in age, race, education, and types of offenses committed. However, the focus group participants were more likely to have recently been released (approxima tely 10 months less) and more likely to have served a longer prison term (approximately 8 months longer) than pris on participants. Data Collection For those participants who participated in both the focus group and the survey, the focus groups were conducted f irst and then the survey was administered. This ordering would prevent the researchers prior notion about what occurs within pr ison from impacting focus group responses. This was the plan for data collection efforts, but as will be described later, this procedure varied in some locations due to situational circumstances. Once the half-way house or transitional program agreed to allow the researcher access to its current residents, a convenient time and location to meet with residents who met the criteria for the study was agreed upon by the researcher and the half-way house or transitional program staff. Prior to beginning the study, the researcher informed reside nts that participation in the study was voluntary, that they were able to leave at any time, and that their participation in the study would not impact their relationship with th e half-way house or transitional program. For

PAGE 36

36 the residents who agreed to be a part of the study, the researcher passed to them a large envelope, which contained a survey, a smalle r white envelope with an inform ed consent form inside of it and another informed consent form. The two informed consents and survey had an identical number written in the corner (e.g. 004 or 005)2. While participants were signing the informed consent, the researcher typically set up multiple tape recorders. The tape recorders were placed in the center of the circle of part icipants. This allowed the resear cher to conduct the focus group, and transcribe the session at a later date (M organ & Spanish, 1984). Once all of the informed consents had been collected, the researcher reite rated that participation was voluntary and asked if the participates had any que stions. The tape recorders were turned on and the focus group sessions began. Focus Groups The use of focus groups as a m ethodologica l tool allows researchers to explore experiences of individuals and groups by creating a conversation that combines personal beliefs and collective narratives (Morgan, 1996; Morg an & Spanish, 1984; Warr, 2005). Focus groups are controlled group discussions in which the gr oup discussion is foc used on some collective activity or topic (Fre y & Fontana, 1991; K itzinger, 1994; Morgan & Spanish, 1984; Smithson, 2000). The use of focus groups provides researchers insight on behaviors, motivations or thought processes as well as experiences of those participating in the focus group (McLafferty, 2004; Morgan, 1996). In this case, the researcher hoped to gain knowledge about individuals who have been incarcerated, and also about the group experience a nd prison culture, specifically experiences with correctional officers. 2 The researcher plans to keep the list of participants and their responses for 5 years in order to conduct future research on recidivism among the individuals. The list of pa rticipants names will be kept in a locked file cabinet at the University of Florida and kept se parate from the survey responses.

PAGE 37

37 Though the studys protocol called for focus gro ups to be conducted at all study sites and times, only 8 of the 10 groups actually participated in a focus group (See Table 3-3). In one of the groups, Group 5, participants did not want to participate in a focus group. One of the participants asked if he was going to receive financial compen sation for his participation. Upon hearing no from the researcher, he and several othe r participants stated they did not have time for a focus group. The remaining four participants stat ed they had worked all day and did not want to participate. The researcher aske d the participants if they would be at least willing to complete the survey, which all seve n participants of Group 5 were willing to do. The other group that did not participate in a focus group was Group 9. However, unlike Group 5, these participants were not given the op portunity to participate in a focus group. When the group was set up with the director of the or ganization, the researcher expressed that she would require a room away from program staff fo r the focus groups and at least 45 minutes with the possible participants. It was believed that the researcher would be conducting 3 or 4 groups one after one another with about 12 participan ts in each group. However, upon arriving at the location, the director was unable to secure an unoccupied room for the researcher. The location that was provided to the researcher was a ha llway of the county criminal courthouse, which would not allow for the protection of the participants or sessions to be tape recorded clearly. Also, the organization was only able to provide the researcher with access to the participants for approximately 20 minutes. Since conducting focus groups was not going to be a possibility, the researcher asked participants if they were willing to complete the survey. As previously stated, there were 8 focus groups that were conducted. The focus groups did not exceed the recommended focus group participan t size of 12 participants at a time (Frey & Fontana, 1991). The focus groups lasted approx imately of 45 minutes, since time depended on

PAGE 38

38 Table 3-3. Types of Groups Held Group Participated in Focus Group Only Participated in Survey Only Participated in Focus Group and Survey 1. House of Hope X 2. Salvation Army: Red Shield Lodge X 3. Prisoners of Christ X 4. Prisoners of Christ X 5. Salvation Army: Red Shield Lodge X 6. Prisoners of Christ X 7. THORM Inc Ministries X 8. Center of Hope X 9. Pinellas Ex-Offender Reentry Coalition3 X 10. Salvation Army: Red Shield Lodge X the groups willingness to share and time c onstraints imposed by half-way houses and transitional programs schedules. Th e researcher sat in the circle with participants and asked a list of questions regarding th eir experiences of prison life4 (see Table 3-4). Due to some groups having time constraints, the rese archer was not always able to ask all of the questions. The researcher typically took notes during the focus gr oup in order to keep track of who talked and in what order. This was helpful with transcribing the session later. The focus groups ranged from 3 to 12 participants and varied in location (see Table 3-1). All but two of the focus groups were conducted in the evening. This created a problem with 3 All 36 jail-only participants were part of Group 9 (Pinellas Ex-offenders Re-entry Coalition). The remaining 13 participants from Group 9 we re prison participants. 4 Additional questions for another research project were also asked following the questions related to this study.

PAGE 39

39 Table 3-4. Focus Group Questions Question Number Initial Question 1 How would you describe your prison experience? (Explain) Research Question 1: 3 What were your interactions with staff like? (Examples) 4 What were the interactions betw een staff and other inmates like? 6 Did some officers treat you differe ntly than others? How so? Why do you think this happened? (Explain) 8 If you were talking to your friends how would you describe the staff in the prison where you were? What about the interactions you had with them? Research Question 2: 2 In your experience, what type of things did staff do to control inmates? (Please explain. Can you give us some examples?) 5 Did officers mess with you? With other inmates? How? Please give us some examples of how this happened. 7 When you did something wrong, would you be punished the same way each time? How were you generally punished? The same as other inmates? Why or why not? (Explain) Closing Question 9 What would you like people who do research on inmate-staff interactions to know that we have not discussed already? participants complaining of bei ng tired, since they had to wake up early in the morning and had worked all day. In Group 2, eight out of the eleven individuals left during the focus group session. Two of the participants left to talk on their cell phones, one stated the subject matter was too sensitive for him, and the remaining five who left complained of bei ng tired. All of the eight individuals who left completed a survey prio r to leaving the focus group. All evening group sessions were held following dinner and were held in lieu of a regularly scheduled required

PAGE 40

40 meeting. As for the two groups that were not co nducted at night, one was a morning session that was held following a staff meeting and other was an afternoon session that was held in lieu of a bible study class. Six of the focus group sessions were conducted in a ro om of the half-way house. Two of the other focus groups were held in a local church, where the half-way house held its regularly scheduled substance abuse support group meeting, and the other focus group session was held in the kitchen of the half-way houses business office5. Surveys Following a focus group the tape recorder was tu rned off by t he researcher. The researcher then thanked the participants and reminded participants that participation in the study was voluntary. The participants were then asked to re move the survey from the large envelope, and complete the survey, though some participants began completing the su rvey during the focus group. They were also asked to not place any pers onal identifiers on the survey, such as their name or former Department of Corrections in mate number. The surveys took approximately 10 to 20 minutes to complete. On one occasion the researcher read the questions and answers options to a participant who had difficulty reading. The research er filled in or circled the answers for the participant. In the case of Group 9, wh ich had both prison participants and jail-only participants, when the participant returned the su rvey, the researcher aske d the participant if he had ever been incarcerated in a state or fede ral run prison. If the pa rticipant said no, the researcher marked the outside of the envelope with the letter J, in dicating that he had only served time in county jail or jails. If the participant indi cated that he had been incarcerated in a prison, no notation was made. Upon completion of the survey, participants were informed that the 5 As previously stated, the remaining groups participants were not given the opportunity to participant in a focus group, some of which was due to the location. The locati on of this group was the hallw ay of a county criminal courthouse.

PAGE 41

41 remaining copy of the informed consent was theirs to keep and they were again thanked for their participation. Participants did not receive a ny financial compensation for their participation. Measures There were two instrum ents utilized in this study. The first was a list of unstructured focus group questions and the second was a written, stru ctured survey. The me asurement items were mainly selected based on previous literature a nd the researchers persona l experience working in the Florida Department of Corrections. In lin e with the beliefs of convict criminologists,6 the knowledge or ideas drawn from firsthand experien ces gained while housed or working within the prison system allows for a more accurate underst anding of the correctional system (Richards & Ross, 2001). The informal sanctions used in the su rvey were selected from previous literature, inmates personal accounts and the researcher s witnessing the use of the sanctions. The questions regarding interactions with officers and adjectives de scribing officers were developed from conversation with inmates currently incarcerated. Focus Group Questions In order to answer the tw o research questions, several questions were formulated to ask the participants during the focus group (See Table 3-4) Nine questions were typically asked, but as previously stated, due to time c onstraints during some of the focus groups not all the questions were asked in some cases. There were four questions geared at determining what the prison experience was like for inmates regarding staff and their interactions with staff. The questions ranged from very broad, such as simply asking part icipants to describe their interactions with staff, to specific examples on how or if officer s treated the participant differently than other 6 Convict criminologists are inmates or ex-inmates, who have Ph.D.s or are working towards obtaining one that write and publish essays and/or conducted empirical research about policies or practices regarding criminology, criminal justice, corrections and commun ity corrections (Richards & Ross, 2001).

PAGE 42

42 inmates. Three questions were developed to examine the methods of control used by officers to manage inmates. Once again the questions ranged from broad to very specific. There was an initial question that asked participants to desc ribe their prison experience, which depending on their response could answer e ither research question. The hope in having such an open-ended question was to make participants feel comfor table and not threatened (Frey & Fontana, 1991). In addition, it allowed former inmates to discu ss important aspects of their prison experience before being prompted. There was also a closing question which asked participants what they would like to see researchers examine regarding inmate and staff interactions in the future7. Survey The survey was 13 pages including the cove r page (See Appendix A). It had 4 personal characteristics questions regardi ng age, sex, race and e ducational level and 6 additional questions about crim inal history and release from prison. These questions asked about time since release, time in prison, time in half-way house (if curren tly in a half-way house), where the individual was incarcerated, the security le vel of the facility where the person was incarcerated, and what offense or offenses they had been convicted of for their last incarceration. Following the demographic and criminal histor y questions, the survey asked que stions about officers use of formal sanctions. Responses were based on a Like rt scale, in which th e respondent circled his level of agreement with the statement ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. The next section of the survey consisted of questions which tried to measure the occurrence of informal sanctioning while the partic ipant was in prison as well as his beliefs and perceptions about the impact of this sanctioning. The survey asked respondents about nine possible informal sanctions. The informal sancti ons were selected base d on previous literature 7 Additional questions were asked to the focus group s regarding another students research project.

PAGE 43

43 and the researchers personal e xperience working in the Florida Department of Corrections. The nine informal sanctions were: not being told when count has been cleared,8 being forced to remain sitting up during relax count,9 not having the phone turned on, not being allowed the full minutes of phone usage, being forced to rush during eating, shortened acce ss to the yard, reduced access to smoking and rec time by means of not ope ning the yard, reduced access to the canteen and being yelled at. The questions asked respondents to circle the level of agreement with statements regarding officers utilizing the listed informal sanctions, either towards them or other inmates. After being asked about the occurrence of those sanctions, resp ondents were asked if each one of those informal sanctions were effect ive by circling their level of agreement, whether the sanction was not at all effective, a little effective, effective and very effective. The survey then asked respondents questions regarding their interactions with officers on an informal level. The aim of these questions wa s to examine the former inmates perception of these interactions. Once again, th ere was a list of statements th at respondents were asked to identify their levels of agreement with by circ ling strongly agree, agr ee, unsure, disagree and strongly disagree. Statements were as follows: He/she wanted something; He/she was trying to get out of work; He/she was trying to hit on me; He/she was trying to get information from me; He/she was trying to get information about me ; He/she was concerned about my problems; He/she was sincere in his/her in teraction; He/she was no differe nt than anyone else. Respondents were also asked to identify their level of agreem ent to the statement I felt most officers were and the listed word. The list of words was: educated, criminal, fair, patient, polite, wise, violent, 8 Count refers to the process by which the Department of Corrections verifies all inmates are accounted for by literally counting the inmates. Inmates are typically required to remain sitting up right on their bunk until an officer tells them they are allowed to do otherwise. 9 Relax count refers to the time period when the dorm offi cer has counted all inmates, but is waiting for the count to clear, meaning all inmates are accounted fo r. During relax counts inmates are usually allowed to lay down and do other activities such as read, as long as they remain on their bunk.

PAGE 44

44 religious, cruel, rude, and drug abusers. The levels of possible agreement options ranged from strongly disagree to strongly agree.10 Participant Protection Since the study used human subj ects, the researcher took certain m easures and precautions to protect the participants of the study. The researcher did not allow half-way house and transitional program directors or managers or their staff to si t in on the group session or when surveys were being administered. The researcher did not provide half-way house employees with information about participants responses. The re searcher also took precautions to minimize the risk of others linking a participan t with his responses (i.e., did not have the subjects name on the survey). The list of participants with their code number that linked the informed consent and the survey together was kept password protected in a file at the University of Florida. The list was kept separate from the survey and recorded tapes. Variables Dependent Variables The dependent variables for this study are elev en scales that were created and the item s that the scales were comprised of. In order to de velop the scales, explorat ory factor analysis was conducted. Factor analysis allows for the discove ry and summarizing of the pattern of intercorrelation among variables (Wuensch, 2005). Using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS), factor analysis was conducted with the items that were meant to assess inmate and correctional officers interactions. There were 8 items meant to measure interactions: he/she wanted something, he/she was trying to get out of work, he/she was trying to hit one me, he/she was trying to get information from me, he/she was trying to get information about me, he/she 10 There are additional questions added to the survey for futu re research examining the role of religion in prison, but that data will not be used in this study.

PAGE 45

45 was concerned about my problems, he/she was sin cere in his/her interactions, and he/she was no different than anyone else. The items response options were based on a Likert scale with 1 strongly disagree, 2 disagree, 3 unsure, 4 agree a nd 5 strongly agree. In order to be able to examine the mean scores, the scale items, he/she was concerned about my problems, he/she was sincere in his/her interactions, and he/she was no different than anyone else, was recoded so 1 strongly agree, 2 agree, 3 unsur e, 4 disagree and 5 strongly di sagree. A higher response number indicated a negative response, while a lower response number indi cated a positive response. Following the recoding, the author ran factor analysis using Varimax rotation, with the goal being to understand the relations hip among the items by approximating a simple structure. Also, Varimax rotation is the most commonl y used rotation (Wuensch, 2005). It was found that three compone nts had Eigenvalues above 1, and what items loaded on the three components or scales at .5 or above. The first component became the suspicious interaction scale, and was comp rised of the following three items: he/she wanted something, he/she was trying to get information from me, an d he/she was trying to get information about me. The items loaded on the scale at .65, .89, and .87, respectively. The scale items were added to together then divided by three in order for the sc ale values to remain the same. Conceptually the items appeared to be related. Agreement with th e items meant that part icipants viewed their interactions with correctional o fficers with suspicion. The scale ite ms indicated that correctional officers interactions were guided by them wa nting something, which included information about the inmate and/or from the inmate. The Cronb achs alpha of .78 indicated the scale had good internal consistency. The second scale that was formed was termed the negative intera ction scale. It was comprised of 2 items: he/she was trying to get ou t of work and he/she was trying to hit on me.

PAGE 46

46 The item, he/she was trying to get out of wor k, loaded on the scale at .79, while the second item loaded at .80. The two scale items were added to together then divided by two. This was done so the scale values would remain the same for co mparison purposes. The items appeared to show that some participants believed that correctional officers may have negative motives behind their interaction, such as not wanting to work or trying to make sexua l advances toward inmates. The reliability for the scale was .55, which indicated lower internal consistency than the previous scale. The final scale that was formed was comprise d of two items. The two items were he/she was sincere in his/her interac tion, which loaded at .83, and he /she was concerned with my problems, which also loaded at .83. The items formed the positive interaction scale. The scale items were added to together then divided by tw o in order for the scale values to remain the same. The items conceptually fit, since the items indicated positive interactions with correctional officers. Reliability for the scale wa s .71, showing good internal consistency. One of the survey items that was meant to measure inmate and correctional officer interactions was dropped from the analysis. The factor analysis s howed that the item, he/she was no different than anyone el se, did not load on any of the three components. Exploratory factor analysis wa s also run with the survey items that were designed to measure former inmates perception of correctiona l officers traits. There were 10 items meant to measure those traits: educated, criminal, fair, pati ent, polite, wise, violent, cruel, rude and drug abuser. As with the previous scale, the items response optio ns were 1 strongly disagree, 2 disagree, 3 unsure, 4 agree and 5 strongly agree a nd in order to be able to examine the mean scores, the scale items, educated, fair, patient, polite and wise were recoded. A higher response

PAGE 47

47 number, once again, indicated a negative respon se, while a lower response number indicated a positive response. The negative trait scale was comprised of the following 3 items: drug abusers, rude and cruel, which loaded together at .5 or above. The items loaded on the component at .92, .89, and .76, respectively. The three scale items were added to together then divided by three. This allowed for the scales values to remain the same as scale items values. The items appear to be related since agreement with the items meant that participants viewed co rrectional officers as having negative personal characteristics and inmates did not hol d them in high regard. The Cronbachs alpha of .86 indicated the scal e to have good intern al consistency. The second scale that was formed was termed the positive trait scale. It was comprised of 5 items: educated, fair, patient, polite and wi se. The item, educated, loaded on the component at .74, while the second item, fair, loaded at .66. Th e items, patient, polite and wise loaded on the component at .83, .86 and .82. The scale items were a dded to together then divided by five in order for the scale values to remain the same as the scale items values. Agreement with the scale items would indicate that participants agr eed with correctional officers having positive characteristics. The reliability for the scale wa s .86, which indicated good internal consistency. The item, criminal, did not load on either of the previous 2 components, but stood as its own component and did so at .94. Agreement indi cated that participants viewed correctional officers as criminal. The previous five scales discussed were used to answer the first research question, what was the prison experience like for former inmates regarding correctional officers and what were their interactions with correctiona l officers like. Exploratory factor analysis was used to develop scales that examined survey items addressing the second research question, what methods of

PAGE 48

48 informal control did officers use to control inma tes and what was their impact as experienced by former inmates. First, exploratory factor an alysis was run on the 9 items meant to examine informal social control experienced by the participants. Those items were: not told when it was relax count, being forced to remain sitting up during relax count, not having the phone be turned on, not allowed the full minutes of phone usage, being forced to rush during eating, shortened access to the yard, reduced access to smoking and rec time, reduced access to the canteen, and being yelled at. The items re sponse options were based on a Likert scale with 1 never, 2 sometimes, 3 half the time, 4 usually and 5 always, and no recoding was required. A higher response number indicated more experiences with the method, while a lower response number indicated fewer experiences with the method. It was found that two components had Eigenva lues above 1, with items loading on the components or scales at .5 or above. The firs t scale was the limit acce ss control scale, which was comprised of the following four items: being forced to rush during eating, shortened access to the yard, reduced access to smoking and r ec time, and reduced acce ss to the canteen. The items loaded on the component at .77, .77, .70 and .72, respectively. The four scale items were added to together then divided by four. This allowe d for the scales values to remain the same as scale items values. The scale appeared to be compromised of control items that reduced or limited access for inmates to things they valued. The Cronbachs alpha of .77 indicated the scale had good internal consistency. The second scale that was formed was term ed the removal control scale. It was comprised of four items: not told when it was relax count, being forced to remain sitting up during relax count, not having the phone be turn ed on, and not allowed the full minutes of phone usage. The item, not told when it was relax count, loaded on the component at .63, while the

PAGE 49

49 second item loaded at .54. The third item, not having the phone be turned on, loaded at .70. The final item, not allowed the full minutes of phone us age, loaded at .78. The items appeared to be related conceptually as well in that they a ll dealt with the correctional officers removing something from the inmates as a way to control them. The scale items were added to together then divided by four in order for the scales valu es to remain the same scale items values. Agreement from the participants would indicate that the correctional officers removed the phone or full usage of the phone from inmates, and rem oved the ability of inmates to move during relax count. The reliability for the scale was .67, whic h indicated moderate in ternal consistency. One of the survey items that was meant to measure a possible method of informal social control was dropped from the analysis. The factor analysis showed that th e item, being yelled at, did not load on either of the two components. Exploratory factor analysis was also conducted of the items meant to measure whether participants witnessed the methods of informal social c ontrol being utilize d by correctional officers on other inmates. There were nine items mean t to measure the methods participants witnessed: being forced to rush during eating, shortened access to the yard, reduced access to smoking and rec time, reduced access to the cant een, not told when it was relax count, being forced to remain sitting up during relax count, not having the phone be turned on, not allowed the full minutes of phone usage, and being yelled at. As previously stated, the items response options were based on a Likert s cale with 1 never, 2 sometimes, 3 half the time, 4 usually and 5 always, and no recoding was nece ssary. The higher the number th e greater amount of witnessing the use of the method to contro l other inmates. A lower score indicated a lesser amount of witnessing the use of the method on other inmates.

PAGE 50

50 Factor analysis indicated that two compone nts had Eigenvalues above 1 and what items loaded on those two components or scales at .5 or above. The limit access control for others scale was the first scale and was comprised of th e four items: being forced to rush during eating, shortened access to the yard, reduced access to smoking and rec time and reduced access to the canteen. The items loaded on the component at .71, .78, .71 and .80, respectively. The scale items were added to together then divided by four in order for the scales values to be the same as scale items values. The same items had formed the limit access control scale when participants were asked about their own experiences. The items appear to measure correctional officers use of limiting access for other inmates as a method of control. The Cronbachs alpha of .77 indicated the scale to have good internal consistency. The second scale that was formed was the r emoval control for others scale. It was comprised of 5 items: not told when it was relax count, being forced to remain sitting up during relax count, not having the phone be turned on, not allowed the full minutes of phone usage, and being yelled at. The item, not told when it was relax count, loaded on the component at .83, while the second item, being forced to remain sitting up during relax c ount loaded at .62. The third and fourth items, not having the phone be turned on and not allowed the full minutes of phone usage, loaded at .78 and .66. The final item, being yelled at, loaded at .52. The five scale items were added to together then divided by fi ve. This allowed for the scales and the scale items values to be the same. The items formed a similar scale as the items measuring whether the participants had experience the methods of informal social control. The only exception was that the item, being yelled at, loaded on this factor when it did not for the scale asking participants about personal experi ences. As with the previous scal e, the items appeared to imply the correctional officers removing things from the inmates as a method of control. The additional

PAGE 51

51 item, being yelled at, might indicate the removal of peace and quiet, a sense of calm, or perhaps the removal of the some of the inmates dign ity or pride caused by the officer yelling at the inmate. The reliability for the scale was .66, whic h indicated moderate internal consistency. The final scale that was formed by running fact or analysis was comprised of items that were meant to measure the perceived effectivenes s of the methods of informal social control. Those items were: not being told when it was re lax count, being forced to remain sitting up during relax count, not having the phone turned o n, not allowing the full minutes of phone usage, being forced to rush during eating, shortened acce ss to the yard, reduced access to smoking and rec time, and reduced access to the canteen, and being yelled at. The it ems response options were based on a Likert scale with 1 not at all effective, 2 a little effective, 3 effective and 4 very effective. No recoding was necessary. A higher response number indicated a higher perceived effectiveness, while a lower response number indicated a lower perceived effectiveness. The items all loaded on one component at a bove .5. The first and second items, not being told when it was relax count and being forced to remain sitting up, loaded at .68 and .67. The third, fourth and fifth items, not having the phon e turned on, not allowing the full minutes of phone usage, and being forced to rush during eating, loaded on the component at .82, .75 and .82, respectively. The sixth item, shortened access to the yard, loaded at .86, while the seventh item, reduced access to smoking and rec time, loaded at .81. The loading of the eighth item, reduced access to smoking and rec time, was .84. The ninth a nd final item, being yelled at, loaded at .73. The nine scale items were added to together then divided by nine in order for the scales values to remain the same as the nine scale items values. The items conceptually fit, since the items indicated whether the participan t perceived the methods of informal social control were effective. Each item that was m eant to measure the perceptive eff ectiveness of informal social

PAGE 52

52 control was included in the scale. Reliability for the scale was .92, showing high internal consistency. Independent Variables The previou sly listed eleven scales were used as dependent variables, as well as the items that comprised the scales. There were six independent variables included in the analysis. The first independent variable was age. This was assessed by asking participants were asked, how old are you?. The variable was left as a contin uous variable. The sec ond independent variable was race. Participants were asked, how would you describe your race and/or ethnicity, then asked to circle one of the following response op tions: white, black/African American, Hispanic, or other, which had a space to specify what they defined as other. The responds were recoded to 0 indicating non-white and 1 indicating white. Th e third independent variable was years of education. Participants were as ked, what is the highest level of education you have obtained, then asked to circle a response option. The options were: none, 1st grade, 2nd grade, 3rd grade, 4th grade, 5th grade, 6th grade, 7th grade, 8th grade, 9th grade, 10th grade, 11th grade, high school, GED, some college, Associates degree, Bachelors degree and other, with space to specify what they defined as other. The responses were reco ded so the option matched the years of education (i.e., 2nd grade was recoded from 3 to 2 for two years of school). This creat ed the years of school variable. In the case of high sc hool and GED, both were coded into 12, for 12 years of school. The responses of Associates degree and B achelors degree was recoded into 14 and 16, respectively. The fourth indepe ndent variable was time since rele ase from prison or jail, also referred to as months out. Participants were asked, how long since you have been out of prison11?, and participants had the op tion to indicate in months or years. All responses were 11 In the case of jail-only participants, they were verbally instructed to indicate the amount of time since their release from jail. The same was true of the question pertaining to how much time they served in jail.

PAGE 53

53 entered in as months, so responses that were wr itten in years were converted into months. The fifth independent variable was th e amount of time served in pris on or jail, as referred to as months in. participants were asked, how long were you in pris on, and participants were, once again, given the option to indicate the amount in months or years. As in the case with the previous variable, all responses were entered in as months. Reponses written in years were converted into months. The sixth and final indepe ndent variable was offense type, also referred to as crime type. Participants were asked, for your last incar ceration, what offense(s) were you convicted of?, and participants were asked to lis t the offense carrying the longest sentence first. Only the first offense was used for classification. Us ing an offense type rubr ic that is utilized by Alachua County Court Services in classifying offende rs, participants were classified into one of the following categories: drug, prope rty, violent, violation of proba tion or parole and other. The other category was offenses not listed on the rubric or traffic violations, which had too few numbers to create a category. Th e categories were then recode d to create that independent variable that was used. The cat egories of drug, property, violator s of probation or parole and other were recoded as 0 indicating nonviolent, and 1 indicating violent. Analysis The analys is for this study utilized techni ques for both qualitative and quantitative data. There are four methods that combine focus gr oups and surveys (Morgan, 1996). The first method is where surveys are the primary source of data and focus groups are used to help researchers design and create the survey. The second is the re verse of the first method, focus groups are the primary method and surveys are used to help create the focus groups and focus groups questions. The third method uses focus groups as th e primary data source and surveys are used as follow-up data to interpret the data from the fo cus groups. The final combination was the method that was utilized in this study. Surveys were the primary data source and focus groups were used

PAGE 54

54 as follow-ups to assist in inte rpreting the survey data. The exp ectation in using this method was to obtain a clear in-depth understanding of the prison experience, es pecially as it relates to staff interaction. In order to answer both research questions, fr equencies were first run in order to examine how participants responded. Once frequencies were run on all scales and scale items, the percentage of participants that responded to the survey item s and their mean scores were examined. This allowed the author to state approx imately what percentage of participants agreed with the scales and scale items, or depending on the survey questions the percentage that reported experiencing or witnessi ng the method of control and thei r perceived effectiveness of the methods. Following the frequencies, correlations were ru n with all scales and scale items across all samples. This allowed the author to examin e possible correlations between the dependent variables (scales and scale items) and independent variables (age, race, years of school, months out, months in, and offense type). Once it was dete rmined there were variables with significant relationships, ordinary least squares linear (OLS) regression wa s run. OLS regression analysis was used in this paper since it allows for the ex amination of the predictive relationship between the dependent variables and explanatory variables. Throughout the analysis, the focus group data were examined for possible themes that matched or contradicted what was found from the survey results. Qualitative examples that supported or expanded the results that were f ound from the quantitative data were noted. Summary This section described the m ethodology that the study utilized. It discussed the half-way houses and transitional programs from where the sample was drawn. The method of data collection, which included describing the focu s group and the survey administration, was

PAGE 55

55 presented. The measures, both focus group questions and surveys, were described in detail, and there was a section describing the measures that were taken to pr otect participants. The variables utilized in the study were discu ssed, and the final section describe d the data analysis techniques that were utilized.

PAGE 56

56 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS This section describ es the results from this study. First, the author discusses the results from the first research question. Then, the author describes the results from the second research question. For both questions, focus gr oup data is used to try to furt her understand the survey data and tables are used to display data. Research Question 1: Experien ce w ith Correctional Officers The first research question this report hopes to answer is, what was the prison experience like for former inmates regarding correctional o fficers and, what were th eir interactions with correctional officers like?. This is accomplished by first examining how participants responded on the survey. Next, the focus group results are ex amined in order to determine whether they corroborated the survey results or perhaps expl ained the survey results. This is followed by results from the correlations that were run, and lastly, results from the regressions that were conducted on items found be significantly correlated. In order to examine how part icipants responded, the percenta ge of participants that responded to the survey items and their mean sc ores were examined. All the percents reported are valid percents. From items pe rtaining to the first research que stion, there was a high response rate. The total sample had an overall 91% respon se rate (96 out of 106) or higher, while the prison participants had a 90% response rate (63 ou t of 70) or higher. The jail-only participants had the lowest overall response ra te at 81% (29 out of 36) and the focus group participants had the highest response rate at 96% (48 out of 50) or higher. Frequencies: Correctional Officer a nd Inmate Interaction s Scales First, frequencies were run on the suspicious interaction scale to determine how participants responded to the scales items a nd the means were examined (See Table 4-1).

PAGE 57

57Table 4-1. Inmate and Correc tional Officer Interactions Survey Participants Focus Group Participants Total Sample (N=106) Prison Participants (N=70) Jail-only Participants (N=36) Prison Participants (N=50) N % AgreeMean N % Agree Mean N % Agree Mean N % Agree Mean Suspicious interaction scale (1 Strongly Disagree, 2 Disagree, 3 Unsure, 4 Agree, 5 Strongly Agree) 3.1 3.2 2.8 3.3 Item 1: He/she wanted something 40 40.0 3.0 32 47.0 3.2 8 25.0 2.8 27 55.1 3.3 Item 2: He/she was trying to get info from me 41 41.4 3.0 32 47.8 3.2 9 28.1 2.7 26 54.2 3.3 Item 3: He/she was trying to get info about me 40 40.0 3.1 28 41.8 3.2 12 37.5 2.9 23 47.9 3.2 = .78 Negative interaction scale (1 Strongly Disagree, 2 Disagree, 3 Unsure, 4 Agree, 5 Strongly Agree) 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.6 Item 1: He/she was trying to get out of work 25 25.3 2.7 17 25.3 2.8 8 25.0 2.5 14 29.2 2.9 Item 2: He/she was trying to hit on me 16 16.2 2.3 10 14.9 2.2 6 18.8 2.4 8 16.7 2.2 = .55

PAGE 58

58 Table 4-1. Continued Survey Participants Focus Group Participants Total Sample (N=106) Prison Participants (N=70) Jail-only Participants (N=36) Prison Participants (N=50) N % Agree Mean N % Agree Mean N % Agree Mean N % Agree Mean Positive Interactions Scale (1 Strongly Agree, 2 Agree, 3 Unsure, 4 Disagree, 5 Strongly Disagree) 3.2 3.3 2.9 3.4 Item 1: He/she was sincere about his/her interactions 28 28.6 3.1 16 23.9 3.2 12 38.7 2.9 13 27.1 3.2 Item 2: He/she was concerned about my problems 23 23.7 3.3 13 19.4 3.4 10 33.3 3.1 9 18.8 3.5 = .71

PAGE 59

59 The total samples overall mean for the scale wa s 3.1, indicating a response of unsure as to whether as the participant view ed his interactions with corr ectional officers with suspicion. Prison participants had similar results (mean= 3.2), as did the subset group of focus group participants (mean= 3.3). The jail-only partic ipants mean was 2.8, indicating disagree. Overall, the mean scores for the suspicious inte raction scale were clos e across the four groups. This pattern was present in the scale items m ean scores. For all the items, the total sample, prison participants, and focus group participants mean scores ranged from 3.0 to 3.3, indicating unsure, while the mean scores for jail-only participants ranged from 2.7 to 2.9, indicating disagree. Next, each item that the scale was comprised of was examined individually to determine what percentage of participants agreed with each item. Agreement was determined by combining agree and strongly agree responses. For the fi rst item, he/she wanted something, fewer than half of the total sample (N= 40, 40%) and pris on participants (N= 32, 47%) agreed, while only one-fourth of the jail-only participants (N= 8, 25%) did. However, over half of the focus group participants (N= 27, 55.1%) agreed. Similar, results were found w ith the second item, he/she was trying to get information from me. Fewer than half of the total samp le (N= 41, 41.4%) and prison participants (N= 32, 47.8%) agreed, while only slightly more than one-fourth of the jail-only participants (N= 9, 28.1%) agreed. Once again, over half of the fo cus group participants (N= 26, 54.2%) agreed. The third and final item, he/she wa s trying to get information about me, had the least amount of variance across groups. Fewer than half of all four groups agreed. The subset group of focus group participan ts (N= 23, 47.9%) had the most agreement, followed by the prison participants (N= 28, 41.8 %). The total sample (N=40, 40%) had similar agreement percentage to that of the pr ison participants. The jail-only participants (N= 12, 37.5%) had the

PAGE 60

60 lowest percentage agreement. Overall, there ap pears to be some evidence that participants viewed interactions with suspicion, with the focu s group participants being most likely to agree, while jail-only participants were the least likely to agree. The next scale examined was the negative in teraction scale (See Table 4-1). The total sample had an overall scale mean score of 2.5, indicating a response of disagree with the interactions they had with correctional officer s being negative in orientation. Similarly, the prison participants mean score was 2.5; the jail-only participants mean score was 2.4 and the focus group participants mean score was 2.6, all indicating disagree. Across all groups, the mean scores for the two items that the scal e was comprised of all indicated a disagree response. The scores ranged from 2.2 to 2.9. As with the previous scale, agreement was determined by combini ng agree and strongly agree responses. For the first item of the nega tive interaction scale, he/she was trying to get out of work, one-fourth of the total sample (N= 25, 25.3%), prison participants (N= 17, 25.3%), and jail-only participants (N= 8, 25%) agreed. Slightly more of the focus group participants (N= 14, 29.2%) agreed with the first item. The second ite m, he/she was trying to hit on me, had very low levels of agreement across groups. The pr ison participants (N= 10, 14.9%) had the lowest, followed by the total sample (N= 16, 16.2%). Th e focus group participants (N= 8, 16.7%) had the second highest agreement, while the jailonly participants (N= 6, 18.8%) had the highest percentage agreement. Overall, the scale it ems had lower percentages of agreement in comparison to the previous scale. While some participants agreed with st atements that indicated a negative interaction, most did not. The groups had similar percentage s of agreement for both items, with focus group participants having a slightly higher per centage for the first item, and jail-only participants having highe r agreement for the second item.

PAGE 61

61 The final interaction scale was the positive in teraction scale (See Table 4-1). The overall scale mean for the total sample was 3.2, indi cating unsure. An unsure response would indicate the participant was unsur e as to whether his interactions with correctional officers were positive. The prison participants (mean= 3.3) and focus group participants (mean= 3.4) had similar mean scores, also indicating unsure. The jail-only participants mean score was 2.9, indicating disagree. The mean scores for the two scale items were similar. For the total sample, prison participants and focus gr oup participants the mean scor es indicated unsure for both items and ranged from 3.1 to 3.5. However, the jail-only participants mean score indicated disagree for the first item (mean= 2.9), and uns ure for the second item (mean= 3.1). Overall, the groups were similar. For the positive interaction scale, agreement was determined in manner previously stated, by combining agree and strongly agree responses. The first item, he/she was sincere about his/her interaction, rece ived approximately 30% agreemen t from the total sample (N= 28, 28.6%) and focus group participants (N= 13, 27.1 %). Fewer than one-fourth of the prison participants (N= 16, 23.9%) agreed with the scale item, while nearly 40% of the jail-only participants (N= 12, 38.7%) agreed. The percentage in agreement were lower for the second item, he/she was concerned about my problem s. The prison participants (N= 13, 19.4%) and focus group participants (N= 9, 18.8%) had roughly 20% agreement, while the total sample (N= 23, 23.7%) had slightly higher percen tage agreement. Once again, th e jail-only participants (N= 10, 33.3%) had the highest percentage agreement. Overall, the jail-onl y participants appear to be most likely to agree with statements that in dicated a positive inter action with correctional officers. The remaining three groups had roughly similar percentages in agreement for each of the scale items.

PAGE 62

62 Frequencies: Correctional Officers Traits Scales The next set of scales measured perceived co rrec tional officer traits (See Table 4-2). The first scale was the negative trait scale. The total samples overall mean score was 3.0, indicating a response of unsure as to whether correctional o fficers hold negative traits. The prison participants (mean= 3.1) and focus group pa rticipants (mean= 3.4) also had mean scores indicating unsure. The jail-only participan ts overall mean score was 2.7, indicating a disagree response for correctional officers holding negative traits. For the three scale items, the means scored varied based on the item. For the first item the mean score ranged from 2.7 to 2.9, indicating disagree, for the to tal sample, prison sample and jail-only sample. The focus group sample had a mean score of 3.0, indicating unsur e. For the second item, all four groups had mean score that indicated unsure, ranging from 3.0 to 3.7. The final item had two groups, prison participants (mean= 3.1) and focus group participants (mean= 3.3), whose mean scores indicated unsure. The remaining two groups total sample (mean= 2.9) and jail-only participants (mean= 2.9) mean sc ores indicated disagree. For the first item of the scale, drug abusers, fewer than 30% of participants from each group agreed. Agreement was determined by combining agree and strongly agree. The prison participants (N= 14, 29%) and jail-only participants (N = 9, 28%) had higher percentage agreement than did the total sample (N= 26, 26 %) and prison participants (N= 17, 25%). The second item, rude, had much higher percentage of participants agreei ng with it. Focus group participants (N= 33, 67%) and pr ison participants (N=41, 61%) had over 60% agreement, while total sample (N= 54, 55%) had over 50% agreement. While fewer in comparison to the other groups, the jail-only participan ts (N= 13, 42%) still had over 40% agreement. The third item, cruel, saw the most variation in percentage ag reed across groups. Over half of the focus group

PAGE 63

63Table 4-2. Correcti onal Officer Traits Survey Participants Focus Group Participants Total Sample (N=106) Prison Participants (N=70) Jail-only Participants (N=36) Prison Participants (N=50) N % AgreeMean N % AgreeMean N % AgreeMean N % AgreeMean Negative Trait Scale (1 Strongly Disagree, 2 Disagree, 3 Unsure, 4 Agree, 5 Strongly Agree) 3.0 3.1 2.7 3.4 Item 1: Drug abuser 26 26.3 2.8 17 25.4 2.9 9 28.1 2.7 14 28.6 3.0 Item 2: Rude 54 55.1 3.3 41 61.2 3.4 13 41.9 3.0 33 67.3 3.7 Item 3: Cruel 38 39.2 2.9 30 45.5 3.1 8 25.8 2.6 25 52.0 3.3 = .86 Criminal Variable (1 Strongly Disagree, 2 Disagree, 3 Unsure, 4 Agree, 5 Strongly Agree) 31 31.6 2.9 22 32.4 3.0 9 30.0 2.9 15 30.0 2.9 Positive Trait Scale (1 Strongly Agree, 2 Agree, 3 Unsure, 4 Disagree, 5= Strongly Disagree) 3.4 3.5 3.1 3.5 Item 1: Educated 33 33.0 3.2 18 26.5 3.4 15 46.9 2.9 14 28.0 3.4 Item 2: Fair 35 35.7 3.2 23 34.3 3.3 12 38.7 3.1 16 33.3 3.2 Item 3: Patient 26 26.3 3.4 14 20.6 3.5 12 38.7 3.3 10 18.4 3.5 Item 4: Polite 24 24.7 3.5 13 19.1 3.6 11 37.9 3.2 9 20.4 3.6 Item 5: Wise 24 24.5 3.4 11 16.7 3.6 13 40.6 3.1 10 20.8 3.5 = .86

PAGE 64

64 participants (N= 25, 52%) agreed, wh ile slightly fewer than half of the prison participants (N= 30, 46%) did. There was less agreement in the re maining two groups, total sample (N= 38, 39%) and jail-only participants (N= 8, 26%). Overall, focus group participants were most likely to agree with negative traits describing correctiona l officers. Across all groups, the item receiving most agreement was the trait describing correctional officers as being rude. As discussed in the data an alysis section, the criminal variable loaded on its own component when factor analysis was run. In exam ining the criminal variable by itself, the mean score for total sample, jail-only and focus group participants was 2.9, indicating disagree (See Table 4-2). With a very slight increase in overall mean score, prison participants (mean= 3.0) indicated unsure. Across all groups, 30% or slig htly higher indicated the response agree or strongly agree to the criminal variable, with prison participants (N= 22, 32%) had the highest percentage agreement. Total sample (N= 31, 32 %) had the next highest level agreement, and lastly the two remaining groups, jail-only partic ipants (N= 9, 30%) and focus group participants (N= 15, 30%). The criminal variable received some support, in terms of agreement, across all groups. The positive trait scale was the final scal e examined (See Table 4-2). The overall mean score was 3.4 for the total sample, 3.5 for th e prison participants and the focus groups participants and 3.1 for the jail-o nly participants, in all cases i ndicating unsure. An unsure response indicated that a participant was unsure if correctional officers held positive traits. For the first item, the tota l sample, prison partic ipants, and focus group participants means ranged from 3.2 to 3.4, indicating unsure, while jail-only participants mean score was 2.9, indicating disagree. For all four of the remaining items and across all groups, the mean scores indicated unsure, and ranged from 3.1 to 3.6.

PAGE 65

65 The positive trait scales first item, educated, had slightly fewer than half of the jail-only participants (N= 15, 47%) agreement. Agreement, once again, was determined by combining agree and strongly agree responses. A little great er than one-fourth of the prison participants (N= 18, 27%) and focus group participants (N= 14, 28%) agreed, whereas one-third of the total sample (N= 33, 33%) did. The second item, fair, ha d one-third or higher agreement for all four groups, with highest percentage agreement from jail-only participants (N= 12, 39%). The total sample (N= 35, 36%) had the next highest percenta ge agreement, followed by prison participants (N= 23, 34%). The focus group (N= 16, 33%) had the lowest percentage agreement. There was more variance in percentage ag reed for the third item, patient Jail-only participants (N= 12, 39%) had the highest percentage agreement, followed by the total sample (N= 26, 26%). The remaining two groups, prison participants (N = 14, 21%) and focus group participants (N= 10, 20%), had similarly low percentage agreement with the scale item. The fourth item, polite, also had staggered percentages of ag reement across groups. Once again, jail-only participants (N= 11, 38%) had the highest percentage agreement, followed by the total sample (N= 24, 25%). Both, prison participants (N= 13, 19%) and focus group participants (N = 9, 18%), had fewer than 20% agreement. The fifth and final item, wise, received over 40% agreement from jail-only participants (N= 13, 41%) but only fewer than 20% agreemen t from prison participants (N= 11, 17%). The total sample (N= 24, 25%) and fo cus group participants (N= 10, 21%) ranged between the two groups in agreement. Overall, jail-only participants were the most likely to agree with items that used positive terms to describe correctional officers. In the case of all five scale items, jail-only participants had the highest percentage agreement in co mparison to the three other groups, whose percentages in agreement were usually similar to each other.

PAGE 66

66 Focus Group Data: Experience with Correctional Officers As previously m entioned, approximately half of the former inmates involved in the study participated in a focus group. The hope was that the focus groups would help gain a better understanding of inmate and correctional officers interactions and how correctional officers are viewed by inmates. The survey questions exam ined what participants thought during their interactions with correctional officers. The focus group questions allowed participants to describe the interactions and e xpand on what they thought about th eir interactions. As was true with the surveys, participants were more likely to described negative inte ractions experienced by themselves or witnessed by others than descri be positive interaction. In total the suspicious interaction scale and the negativ e interaction scale were comprise d of five survey items. The focus group participants were the most likely to have indicated ag reement for four of the five items, and of those four items 50% or more of th e focus group participants indicated agreement. A number of focus group participants discu ssed negative interactions with correctional officers during focus group sessions lending creditability to the survey results. A white male from Jacksonville said they [correctional officer s] treated me like I was a piece of shit. This was echoed by a 42-year-old white male who serv ed a 1-year-sentence. He stated they do whatever to humiliate you and make you feel like a worthless piece of dog shit. While 42-yearold black male who served a 5-year-sentence sa id I would say officers dont, dont respect youmost of the time they dont even see you as human and that correctional officers call you every name but your name. A 45-year-old white male who served an 18-month-sentence reported witnessing correctional officers being d isrespectful towards others inmates. When asked to describe interactions with correctional officer s, a 43-year-old black male who served a 7-year-sentence stated, I seen them treat other people like animals instead of humans. A white participant who served a 25-year-sentence said see, an officer curse you and talk to you in any

PAGE 67

67 kind of way. Some comments came from partic ipants whose voices were not able to be identified during the interview. One participant st ated the interactions wi th correctional officers were traumaticcause the wa y they [correctional officers] treat people. The second unidentified participant said they have an attitude from the time they come on the yard until the time they leave. None of the participants stat ed verbatim what the survey asked them (i.e., thought he/she was trying to get out work). However, several pa rticipants did suggest that they viewed their interaction with suspici on. For example, a 44-year-old Hispanic male who served over a 10-yearsentence stated, theyre looki ng for trouble. His sentiment was reiterated by a 58-year-old black male from a different Jacksonville focus gr oup. He stated, they do stuff on the sly. Both comments suggested suspicion about correctional officers motives. The focus group results seem to indicate s upport of the survey results for inmates describing negative interactions with correctional officers, as well as positive interactions with correctional officers. However, in the survey overall the number of focus group participants that indicated having some positive interaction was fewer than the number of focus group participants indicating ne gative interactions. This was also found to be true in for the qualitative focus group results. A 44-year-old, white male from Clearwater stated, I had good interactions, supporting survey results indicating some participants had positive interactions. A comment from a 38-yearold, black male from Gainesville, who said, I had some officers that wa s alright indicated he had no complains about some of his interactions Comments such as these were the exception, however.

PAGE 68

68 The literature has suggested that the biggest contributor for negative interactions may be the negative views and opinions held by each group about one another (Grusky, 1959). Since neither officers nor former officers were intervie wed, it is impossible to verify the opinions of correctional officers. However, it can be verified from the perspe ctive of former inmates on their views of correctional officers. In the survey results, focus group pa rticipants were most likely to indicate agreement with scale items that nega tively described correctio nal officers. The focus groups results supported the survey results. For the most part, they did not hold positive views of officers. For example, a 43-year-old black male described correctional officers as being very unprofessional and very judgmental. A white male who resided in Jacksonville, when asked to describe correctional officers said, theyre all crooked. Theyre all dogs. Another Jacksonville pa rticipant said that correctional officers manipulate like a child implying that correctional officers are manipulative. In the survey results, some participants did indicate agreement with correctional officers having positive traits and views of correctional officers. The fo cus group participants did not offer many comments that indicated they held co rrectional officers in high regard, or viewed them as having positive traits; however, there was a little support. In an example from a 42-yearold black male from Gainesville, he discu ssed his work officer. He stated, he was a good manhe was encouraging. Another Gainesville participant, who was a 38-year-old black male, shared that some officers just genuinely care. The focus group results support the results found from the surveys. Focus group participants were more likely to discuss negative interactions and describe officers in a negative manner, than discuss positive interactions and describe officer in a positive manner.

PAGE 69

69 Correlations and Regressions: Correctio nal Officer and I nmate Interactions Following the frequencies, correlations were run with the dependent and independent variables for correctional officers interactions (see Table 4-3). Ther e were six independent variables used: age, race, years of school, months out, months in and crime type. The three scales about interactions with correcti onal officers were used as the de pendent variables as well as the seven total survey items that the three scales were comprised of. There were no significant correlations found for the total samp le, prison participants and jail -only participants for any of the dependent and independent variables. Howeve r, for the subset group focus group participants the second item of the suspicious interaction sc ale, he/she was trying to get information from me, age and months in prison were found to be si gnificant. Both indicated a negative correlation. As age and months in prison increased, agreement with the survey item decreased. Next, ordinary least squares regression was r un with he/she was trying to get information from me as the dependent variable and the ag e and months in as independent variables (See Table 4-5). Neither variable was found to be a si gnificant predictor of the survey item, once the other variable was controlled. No other regressions were run with the interaction scales using any of the other three samples, becau se the variables were not correl ated at the bivariate level. Correlations and Regressions: Co rrectional Officers Traits Correlations were also run in order to examine correctional o fficer traits (See Table 4-4). The same six independent variables were used that are listed above. The two trait scales, negative trait scale and positive trait scale, w ith their combined eight items, and the criminal variable were the dependent variables. As with the interaction scales, no significant relationships were found for the total sample, prison participan ts or jail-only participants. For focus group participants, the positive trait scale, age, race and years of school were found to be significant. Age had a negative relationship in dicating as age increased agr eement with the item decreased.

PAGE 70

70Table 4-3. Correlations of Inmate a nd Correctional Officer Interactions Total Sample (N=106) Prison Participants (N=70) Age Race Years of School Months Out Months In Crime Type Age Race Years of School Months Out Months In Crime Type Suspicious Interaction Scale .02 .00 .03 -.00 -.11 -.06 -.07 .11 .10 -.02 -.22 -.02 Item 1: He/she wanted something .04 .07 .09 .00 .01 .01 -.07 .14 .17 .01 -.06 -.03 Item 2: He/she was trying to get info from me .05 -.04 .01 .00 -.11 -.11 -.06 .07 .05 -.04 -.25* .02 Item 3: He/she was trying to get info about me -.03 -.02 -.02 -.02 -.15 -.05 -.04 .08 .04 -.02 -.24 -.06 Negative Interaction Scale -.04 .03 -.06 -.19 -.07 -.08 -.05 .14 .05 -.25 -.09 -.11 Item 1: He/she was trying to get out of work -.01 -.04 -.08 -.12 -.05 -.05 -.12 .04 -.03 -.19 -.12 .01 Item 2: He/she was trying to hit on me -.06 .09 -.02 -.19 -.07 -.07 .05 .18 .10 -.21 -.04 -.18 Positive Interactions Scale .02 .09 .16 -.09 .07 .11 -.01 .20 .14 -.16 -.01 -.01 Item 1: He/she was sincere about his/her interactions .01 .07 .11 -.03 -.02 .09 -.02 .15 .10 -.10 -.11 -.02 Item 2: He/she was concerned about my problems .02 .10 .17 -.12 .14 .11 .00 .21 .14 -.20 .10 .01 p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001

PAGE 71

71Table 4-3. Continued Jail-only Participants (N= 36) Focus Group Participants (N= 50) Age Race Years of School Months Out Months In Crime Type Age Race Years of School Months Out Months In Crime Type Suspicious Interaction Scale -.13 -.16 -.19 -.17 .16 -.08 -.32* .15 .20 -.15 -.28 .11 Item 1: He/she wanted something -.03 .00 -.16 -.32 .26 .12 -.19 .19 .29* -.21 -.03 .06 Item 2: He/she was trying to get info from me -.10 -.18 -.09 .10 .07 -.29 -.33* .09 .11 -.10 -.33* .19 Item 3: He/she was trying to get info about me -.18 -.19 -.20 -.18 .03 -.02 -.27 .12 .10 -.06 -.33* .02 Negative Interaction Scale -.09 -.15 -.39* .08 .34 -.03 -.20 .13 .16 -.14 -.09 -.29* Item 1: He/she was trying to get out of work -.05 -.13 -.24 .25 .26 -.12 -.24 .05 .07 -.13 -.10 -.10 Item 2: He/she was trying to hit on me -.10 -.14 -.42* -.12 .31 .07 -.07 .15 .18 -.09 -.04 -.33* Positive Interactions Scale -.27 -.05 .29 .27 .10 .38* -.07 .32* .17 -.28 -.05 .14 Item 1: He/she was sincere about his/her interactions -.22 -.04 .16 .31 .13 .33 -.02 .31* .11 -.22 -.14 .09 Item 2: He/she was concerned about my problems -.25 -.04 .31 .16 .04 .31 -.11 .26 .19 -.28 .05 .16 p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001

PAGE 72

72Table 4-4. Correlations of Correctional Officer Traits Total Sample (N=106) Prison Participants (N=70) Age Race Years of School Months Out Months In Crime Type Age Race Years of School Months Out Months In Crime Type Negative Trait Scale .02 .13.02 -.10 -.02 -.00 -.04 .19-.06 -.14 -.12 .09 Item 1: Drug abuser -.10 -.10.03 -.09 -.04 -.04 -.09 .19-.01 -.11 -.09 .04 Item 2: Rude .06 .06.04 -.05 -.01 .03 .04 .20-.02 -.07 -.08 .09 Item 3: Cruel .05 .05-.04 -.12 -.02 -.04 -.04 .13-.12 -.17 -.13 .04 Criminal Variable -.10 -.14.09 .05 .01 -.03 -.13 -.04.13 .06 -.03 .07 Positive Trait Scale -.09 .08.33**-.09 .01 -.03 -.14 .21.39**-.16 -.16 -.09 Item 1: Educated -.04 .07.20 -.14 .08 .12 -.13 .22.19 -.22 -.04 .17 Item 2: Fair -.16 -.14.09 -.12 -.16 .11 -.18 -.06.11 -.16 -.29* .07 Item 3: Patient -.12 .12.28**-.11 -.03 -.05 -.11 .20.39**-.16 -.12 -.21 Item 4: Polite -.04 .15.33**-.10 -.01 -.04 -.08 .23.39**-.16 -.12 -.09 Item 5: Wise -.04 .07.42**.04 .12 -.19 -.01 .19.52**.02 .01 -.22 Jail-only Participants (N= 36) Focus Group Participants (N=50) Age Race Years of School Months Out Months In Crime Type Age Race Years of School Months Out Months In Crime Type Negative Trait Scale -.28 .15.20 -.22 -.01 -.04 -.37* .18-.11 -.10 -.24 .19 Item 1: Drug abuser -.34 .01.17 -.27 .12 -.14 -.27 .08-.06 -.10 -.13 .07 Item 2: Rude -.21 .02.22 -.21 .02 -.02 -.34* .27-.05 .03 -.23 .13 Item 3: Cruel -.20 .07.24 -.22 -.16 -.08 -.28 .15-.13 .00 -.22 .16 Criminal Variable -.28 -.31-.03 .01 -.11 -.14 -.22 -.05-.10 -.00 -.01 -.06 Positive Trait Scale -.57* -.07.16 -.00 .19 .17 -.32* .33*.46**-.20 -.15 -.07 Item 1: Educated -.45* -.18.23 .15 .01 .14 -.34* .28.27 -.06 -.12 .15 Item 2: Fair -.43* -.30-.02 .15 .34 .22 -.41 .04.09 -.25 -.32* .18 Item 3: Patient -.46* .03-.01 -.13 .22 .23 -.27 .34*.47**-.24 -.08 -.29* Item 4: Polite -.38* .12.12 -.01 .15 .12 -.28 .34*.46**-.22 -.05 -.10 Item 5: Wise -.53* -.05.17 .03 .06 -.08 -.01 .28.52**-.06 .10 -.25 p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001

PAGE 73

73 Table 4-5. Predicting Correctional Officer Interactions and Traits Focus Group Participants DV: He/she was trying to get info from me b B SE Age -.031 -.232 .022 Months In -.002 -.200 .002 Model R .140 Model R Adjusted .101 Model F 3.582* Model df 2, 44 DV: Positive Trait Scale b B SE Age -.024 -.248 .013 Race .147 .088 .256 Years of School .137* .395 .052 Model R .288 Model R Adjusted .233 Model F 5.256** Model df 3, 39 DV: Patient b B SE Race .228 .115 .299 Years of School .136* .372 .054 Offense Type -.424 -.153 .402 Model R .266 Model R Adjusted .215 Model F 5.190** Model df 3, 43 DV: Polite b B SE Race .407 .192 .305 Years of School .149* .378 .057 Model R .242 Model R Adjusted .208 Model F 7.166** Model df 2, 45 p< .05 ** p<.01 *** p<.001

PAGE 74

74 Race had a positive relationship indicating a correla tion with white participants and items that comprise the positive trait scal e. The relationship was also positive for years of school, so as years of school increased so did agreement with the item. The third survey item, patient, was found to have a significant relationship with race, years of school and crime type. There was a correlation with white and non-violen t participants being more likel y to agree, and as years of school increase so did agreement. A correlation wa s also found for the fourth survey item, polite, race and years of school. Both had a positive corre lation, indicating white participants and an increase in years of school were more likely to indicate agreement. Ordinary least squares (OLS) regression was run with the items f ound to be significantly related at the bivariate level (See Table 4-5). A model predicting the pos itive trait scale with age, race and years of school as predictors was run first. Age and race were not found to be predictors when the others were controlled, but years of school (b= 14) remained significant. The more years of school, the more lik ely to agree with the positive trait scale. Years of school (b= .15) was also found to be a signif icant predictor for the dependent variable of patient, while race and offense type were not significant when the ot hers variables were in the model. The last regression that was run predicted polite as the dependent variable. Race was found not to be a significant predictor, while years of school again remained significant. The more years of school a person had the more likely he was to indicate agreement with the survey item, polite. The correlations run found that most scales and scale items were not co rrelated with any of the dependent variables. For the interaction and trait scales, no correlations were found for the total sample, prison participants and jail-only part icipants. It was found that one interaction scale item and one trait scale with two of its scale items did have significant correlations with some of the focus group participants inde pendent variables. Regressions were then run, and the only

PAGE 75

75 significant predictor was years of school for the positive trait scale and its two scale items. As years of school increased so does agreement w ith positive traits (e.g., pa tient and polite) being used to describe correctional officers, suggesting those with more years of school are more likely to hold favorable views of correctional officers. When examining the focus group data, the comments describing correctional officers in the positive are scarce. As previously discussed, mo st participants did not discuss correctional officers in a positive manner. The few comments th at were made, such as describing them as caring, came from participants who had at least 12 years of school or high er. This lends credence to the survey findings, since the focus group partic ipants who did discuss correctional officers in a positive manner were on the highe r range of years of school. Research Question 2: Methods of Informal S ocial Control The second half of the result s ection of this report hopes to answer the second research question, what methods of informal social contro l did officers use to control inmates and what was their impact as experienced by former in mates? As with the fi rst question, this is accomplished by first examining how participants responded to questions regarding informal social control on the survey. The focus group resu lts are examined next, in order to determine whether they corroborated or perhaps explained the survey results. Results from the correlations that were run are also included. The final section reports the results from the regressions that were conducted on items found to be significantly correlated. As with the first part of the results section, in order to examine how participants responded, the percentage of participants that responded to the survey items and their mean scores were examined. All the percents repo rted are valid percents. The re sponse rates were high for items pertaining to the second resear ch question, and similar to the response rates for the items pertaining to the first research question. The total sample had an overall 92% response rate (97

PAGE 76

76 out of 106) or higher, while the focus group participants had the response rate at 92% (46 out of 50) or higher. The jail-only par ticipants had the lowest overall response rate at 81% (29 out of 36) and the prison participants had a 94% highest response rate (66 out of 70) or higher. Frequencies: Methods of Info rma l Social Control Scales The first scale that measured informal social controls experienced by the participants was the limit access control scale (See Table 4-6). The limit acce ss control scale had an overall mean of 2.8 for the total sample, indicating s ometimes, while the focus group participants (mean= 3.1) score indicated half the time. The responses options indicated the frequency in which they experienced methods of informal soci al control. The prison participants (mean= 2.9) and jail-only participants (mean= 2.4) had a mean score that also indicated sometimes. The first limit access control scale item had varyin g mean scores, with jail-only participants (mean= 2.7) mean score indicating sometimes. Prison participants (mean= 3.9) and the total samples (mean= 3.5) mean scores indicated half the time, while focus groups participants (mean= 4.2) mean score indicated usually. For the remaining three items the mean scores across all groups indicated sometimes. Th e mean scores ranged from 2.0 to 2.9. In order to examine the reported experiences of the participants with each method of informal social control, frequencies were r un. The responses half the time, usually, and always were combined, and those are the resp onse percents reported. The first item of the limit access control scale, being forced to rush during eating, had a large percentage of participants indicating that it occurred half the time or more (See Table 4-6). Over 70% of the focus group participants (N= 43, 86%), prison part icipants (N= 55, 78.6%), and the total sample (N= 72, 71.3%) indicated this method of informal social control had happened to them, while over 50% of jail-only participants (N= 17, 53.1% ) indicated it. The s econd item, shortened

PAGE 77

77Table 4-6. Informal Methods of Social Control Survey Participants Focus Group Participants Total Sample (N=106) Prison Participants (N=70) Jail-only Participants (N=36) Prison Participants (N=50) N % Half the time or more Mean N % Half the time or more Mean N % Half the time or more Mean N % Half the time or more Mean Limit Access Control Scale (1 Never, 2 Sometimes, 3 Half the Time, 4 Usually, 5 Always) 2.8 2.9 2.4 3.1 Item 1: Being forced to rush during eating 72 71.3 3.5 55 78.6 3.9 17 53.1 2.7 43 86.0 4.2 Item 2: Shortened access to the yard 44 43.6 2.6 29 43.5 2.7 15 45.5 2.6 23 46.9 2.7 Item 3: Reduced access to smoking and rec time 37 37.8 2.6 27 40.3 2.7 10 32.3 2.3 22 44.9 2.9 Item 4: Reduced access to the canteen 34 34.3 2.4 27 40.3 2.6 7 21.9 2.0 21 43.8 2.8 = .77

PAGE 78

78Table 4-6. Continued Survey Participants Focus Group Participants Total Sample (N=106) Prison Participants (N=70) Jail-only Participants (N=36) Prison Participants (N=50) N % Half the time or more Mean N % Half the time or more Mean N % Half the time or more Mean N % Half the time or more Mean Removal Control Scale (1 Never, 2 Sometimes, 3 Half the Time, 4 Usually, 5 Always) 2.4 2.5 2.2 2.4 Item 1: Not told when it was relax count 44 41.5 2.5 30 42.6 2.5 14 42.4 2.4 16 42.0 2.4 Item 2: Being forced to remain sitting up during relax count 41 40.6 2.5 30 42.6 2.7 11 34.4 2.1 22 44.0 2.7 Item 3: Not having the phone be turned on 32 32.3 2.3 23 33.8 2.4 9 25.8 2.1 16 32.7 2.5 Item 4: Not allowed the full minutes of phone usage 34 34.0 2.2 20 29.4 2.2 14 43.8 2.3 13 26.5 2.0 = .67

PAGE 79

79 access to the yard, received over 40% of each gro ups participants indica ting that this method had been imposed on them. The focus group participants (N= 23, 46.9%) wa s the group with the largest percentage reporting occurrence, followe d by the jail-only par ticipants (N= 15, 45.5%). The remaining two groups, prison participants (N= 29, 43.5%) and the total sample (N= 44, 43.6%) had identical reporting percentages. More focus group participants (N= 22, 44.9%) reported having experienced the third item, re duced access to smoking and rec time, than did prison participants (N= 27, 40.3%), the total sample (N= 37, 37.8%) and jail-only participants (N= 10, 32.3%). The fourth scale item, reduced access to the cant een, saw the most variance in percentage experiencing half the time or more. Focus gr oup participants (N= 21, 43.8%) reported the most occurrence, while jailonly participants (N= 7, 21.9%) repo rted the lowest. Both other groups, the total sample (N= 34, 34.3%) and pr ison participants (N = 27, 40.3%) reports of occurrence fell between the other two groups. Overall, focus group participants, the prison s ubset group, were the most likely to report having experienced the methods of informal soci al control related to limiting access. Jail-only participants were least likely to report experien cing the methods, except in the case of the second item, shortened access to the yard. The total sample and prison participants had similar percentage of reported occurrences. The second scale that measured informal soci al control was the removal control scale (See Table 4-6). The overall mean score for the total sample (mean= 2.4) indicated sometimes. Prison participants (mean= 2.5), ja il-only participants (mean= 2.2) and focus group participants (mean= 2.4) mean scores for the removal control sc ale also indicated sometimes. For all four items that comprised, all four groups had mean sc ores that indicated sometimes for all four items that comprise the scale, m ean scores range from 2.0 to 2.7.

PAGE 80

80 The responses of half the time, usually and always were, once again, combined and examined. Approximately 40% of participants from all four groups, indicated that they were not told when it was relax count, the first item. Focus group participants (N= 16, 42%), jail-only participants (N= 14, 42.4%) and th e total sample (N= 44, 41.5%) ha d the same percentage of participants saying they expe rienced the method of control. The remaining group, prison participants (N= 30, 42.6%), had a slightly higher percentage of participants saying it occurred half the time or more. The second item, being forced to remain sitting during relax count, received the largest percentage of participants stating it occurred half th e time or more, from the focus group participants (N= 22, 44%), followed closely by prison participants (N= 30, 42.6%). Jail-only participants (N= 11, 34.4%) had the lowest percentage of participants expressing they experienced the method of control, while the to tal samples percentage (N= 41, 40.6%) was just a little larger. Approximately one-third of the prison partic ipants (N= 16, 33.8%) and focus group participants (N= 16, 32.7%) ex pressed having experienced the third scale item, not having the phone be turned on. Slightly fewer of the to tal sample (N= 32, 32.3%) and even fewer of the jail-only participants (N= 9, 25.8 %) stated experiencing the met hod. The final item, not allowed the full minutes of phone usage, had the most va riance in percentage of participants having experienced the control method ha lf the time or more. Jail-onl y participants (N= 14, 43.8%) had the most participants expre ssing occurrence, followed by the total sample (N= 34, 34%). The remaining groups, prison participants (N= 20, 29.4%) and focus group participants (N= 13, 26.5%), had fewer than 30% of the particip ants indicating occurrence. The amount of participants who indicated experiencing the met hods of informal contro l indicating removal of valued items was comprised of ranged from 26% to 44%, and typically fell in range of the percentage of the other groups.

PAGE 81

81 Frequencies: Methods of Informal Social Control on Others Scales The scales that m easured methods of informal social control imposed on other inmates and witnessed by participants were the limit acce ss control for others scale and the removal control for others scale (See Table 4-7). As w ith the previous scales, the percentage of participants that indicted the response options of half the ti me, usually and always when asked for the frequency in which they witnessed the particular method of control were examined. The first scales overall means indicated somet imes. The total samples mean was 2.5, while the prison participants and focus group participants mean scores were both 2.6. The jail-only participants mean score was 2.4. For the first it em, being forced to rush during eating, prison participants (mean= 4.1) had mean scores which i ndicated usually, while jail-only participants had a mean score which indicated sometimes. The remaining two groups, the total sample (mean= 3.4) and prison participants (mean= 3.9) had mean scores that indi cated half the time. For all four groups, the remaining three scale items had mean scores from all four groups that indicated sometimes, with the m ean scores ranging from 2.0 to 2.8. The first scale item, being forced to rush dur ing eating, had a large percentage of the total sample (N= 59, 59.6%), prison pa rticipants (N= 51, 76.1%) and fo cus group participants (N= 38, 79.2%) indicating that they observed this method being utilized on other inmates. A lot fewer jail-only participants (N= 8, 25 %) indicated that experience. Th e second item, shortened access to the yard, also had fewer ja il-only participants (N= 7, 21.9%) indicating witnessing the method being used on other inmates th an did the total sample (N= 37, 37.4%), prison participants (N= 30, 44.8%) and focus group participants (N= 20, 41.7 %). For the third item, reduced access to smoking and rec time, there was a higher simila rity across groups expressing that they had witnessed this happening more th an half the time or more. Pr ison participants (N=27, 40.9%) and focus group participants (N= 19, 40.4%) had ro ughly 40% indicating so, while the total

PAGE 82

82Table 4-7. Informal Methods of Social Control on Other Inmates Survey Participants Focus Group Participants Total Sample (N=106) Prison Participants (N=70) Jail-only Participants (N=36) Prison Participants (N=50) N % Half the time or more Mean N % Half the time or more Mean N % Half the time or more Mean N % Half the time or more Mean Limit Access Control for Others Scale (1 Never, 2 Sometimes, 3 Half the Time, 4 Usually, 5 Always) 2.5 2.6 2.4 2.6 Item 1: Being forced to rush during eating 59 59.6 3.4 51 76.1 3.9 8 25.0 2.3 38 79.2 4.1 Item 2: Shortened access to the yard 37 37.4 2.6 30 44.8 2.7 7 21.9 2.3 20 41.7 2.7 Item 3: Reduced access to smoking and rec time 37 37.8 2.6 27 40.9 2.7 10 31.3 2.4 19 40.4 2.8 Item 4: Reduced access to the canteen 39 39.4 2.5 29 43.3 2.7 10 31.3 2.0 21 43.8 2.8 = .77

PAGE 83

83Table 4-7. Continued Survey Participants Focus Group Participants Total Sample (N=106) Prison Participants (N=70) Jail-only Participants (N=36) Prison Participants (N=50) N % Half the time or more MeanN % Half the time or more Mean N % Half the time or more Mean N % Half the time or more Mean Removal Control for Others Scale (1 Never, 2 Sometimes, 3 Half the Time, 4 Usually, 5 Always) 2.8 3.0 2.3 3.1 Item 1: Not told when it was relax count 35 35.7 2.4 25 37.3 2.5 10 32.3 2.4 17 34.7 2.5 Item 2: Being forced to remain sitting up during relax count 35 35.7 2.5 27 40.3 2.6 8 22.6 2.2 19 38.8 2.6 Item 3: Not having the phone be turned on 36 37.1 2.4 26 39.4 2.8 10 32.3 2.3 18 37.5 2.5 Item 4: Not allowed the full minutes of phone usage 28 28.9 2.3 21 31.8 2.3 8 22.6 2.1 11 23.4 2.1 Item 5: Being yelled at 49 49.5 3.1 34 50.7 3.1 15 46.9 2.9 24 50.0 3.2 = .66

PAGE 84

84 sample (N= 37, 37.8%) had slightly fewer. Th e jail-only participan ts (N= 10, 31.3%), once again, indicated witnessing the methods being ut ilized on others the least. The fourth item, reduced access to the canteen, had the same pattern as the previous item, with some percentages increased. Prison participants (N=29, 43.3%) an d the subset focus group participants (N= 21, 43.8%) had slightly higher than 40% of the participants indica ting witnessing the methods being utilized on other inmates half the time or mo re, while the total sample (N= 39, 39.4%) had fewer than 40%. Jail-only participants (N= 10, 31.3%) indicated witnessing the method the least. Overall, jail-only participants were the least likely to report having witnessed other inmates being punished by the methods of informal social control. The three other groups had no major differences among the percentage participants indicating witnessing in comparison with each other. The percentage of partic ipants that reported witnessing the methods that comprised the limit access for others scale being utilized on other inmates seemed to be similar to the percentage of participants having reported ex periencing the methods found for the limit access scale. This appears to indicate there were only minor differences in the percentage of participants reporting having experienced the method and having witnessed the methods being used on other inmates. The second scale, removal control for others scale, was also meant to measure informal social control methods (See Table 4-7). The overa ll mean score for the total sample (mean= 2.8) and jail-only participants (mean= 2.3) indicat ed sometimes. Both other groups, prison participants (mean= 3.0) and focus group particip ants (mean= 3.1), mean scores indicated half the time. The first four items that constituted th e scale mean scores that indicated sometimes, with a range of 2.1 to 2.8. For the final item that comprised the scale, the total sample (mean= 3.1), prison participants (mean= 3.1), and focus gr oup participants (mean= 3.2) had mean scores

PAGE 85

85 that indicated half the time. The jail-only pa rticipants (mean= 2.9) mean score indicated sometimes. For the removal control for othe rs scale, over one-third of the total sample (N= 35, 35.7%), prison participants (N= 25, 37.3 %) and focus group participants (N= 17, 34.7%) indicated that they had witnessed the first item, not told wh en it was relax count, being utilized on other inmates. Jail-only participants (N= 10, 32.3%) had slightly fewer particip ants indicating so. The second item, being forced to remain sitting up during relax count, had ro ughly 40% of the prison participants (N= 27, 40.3%) and focus group pa rticipants (N= 19, 38.8%) indicating they witnessed it. The remaining tw o groups, total sample (N= 35, 35.7 %) and jail-only participants (N= 8, 22.6%), had a lower percen tage of participants reporti ng witnessing its use on other inmates half the time or more. Prison particip ants (N= 26, 39.4%) had the largest percentage of participants indicating having witnessed the third item, not having the phone be turned on, followed by focus group participants (N= 18, 37.5 %). The total sample (N= 36, 37.1%) and jailonly participants (N= 10, 32.3%) had lower levels of percentage indicating witnessing. Roughly 30% of the total sample (N= 28, 28.9%) and prison participants (N= 21, 31.8%) reported witnessing the fourth item, not allowed the full minutes of phone usage. The remaining groups, jail-only participants (N= 8, 22.6%) and the subs et of focus group participants (N= 11, 23.4%), reported fewer than 25% of the group witnessed the method utilized on other inmates half the time or more. The fifth item, being yelled at, rece ived the largest percentage of participants indicating witnessing correctional officers utilizing the method. Appr oximately half of the total sample (N= 49, 49.5%), prison pa rticipants (N= 34, 50.7%) and fo cus group participants (N= 24, 50%) indicated so, while slightly fewer of the jail-only participants (N= 15, 46.9%) did so. In summary, the prison participants were the most likely to report having witnessed other inmates

PAGE 86

86 being punished through the listed informal social control methods half the time or more, while jail-only participants were the l east likely to report witnessing the methods. The percentage that reported witnessing the items that comprised the removal control for others scale appeared to indicate there were only minor differences in the percentage of reported witnessing and having experienced the methods for oneself. The percentages of the removal control for others scale seem to fall in range of the percentage of the removal control scale. Frequencies: Perceived Effectiveness of Info rmal Methods of Social Control The final scale examined was the perceived effectiveness scale (See Table 4-8). The scale had overall mean scores from all four groups, total sample (mean= 2.2), prison participants (mean= 2.1), jail-only participants (mean= 2.3) and focus group participants (mean= 2.2), that indicated a little effective, as di d the mean scores for the first item. The first item was not told when it was relax count, while the second item was being forced to remain sitting up during relax count. The second items mean scores for total sample (mean= 2.0) and jail-only participants (mean= 2.1) indicated a little e ffective, while prison participants (mean= 1.9) and focus group participants (mean= 1.9) mean scores indicated not at all effective. The total samples (mean= 2.1), jail-only participants (mean= 2.4) and focu s group participants (mean= 2.0) mean scores indicated a little effective for the third item, while the prison particip ants (mean= 1.9) mean score indicated not at all effective. The thir d item was not having the phone be turned on. The fourth item, not allowed the full minutes of phone usage, had similar mean scores. The total samples (mean= 2.1), jail-only participants (mean= 2.3) and focus group participants (mean= 2.0) mean score indicated a little effective, while the prison particip ants (mean= 1.9) mean score indicated not at all effective. The fift h, sixth, seventh and eight h items mean scores indicated a little effective for all four groups The mean scores ranged from 2.1 to 2.5. The fifth item was being forced to rush during eating; the sixth item was shortened access to the yard;

PAGE 87

87Table 4-8. Perceived Effectiveness of Informal Methods of Social Control Survey Participants Focus Group Participants Total Sample (N=106) Prison Participants (N=70) Jail-only Participants (N=36) Prison Participants (N=50) N % Effective or Very Effective Mean N % Effective or Very Effective Mean N % Effective or Very Effective Mean N % Effective or Very Effective Mean Perceived Effectiveness Scale (1 Not at all effective, 2 a little effective, 3 effective, 4 Very effective) 2.2 2.1 2.3 2.2 Item 1: Not told when it was relax count 30 30.6 2.1 19 29.2 2.1 11 33.3 2.1 15 32.6 2.2 Item 2: Being forced to remain sitting up during relax count 28 28.6 2.0 16 23.9 1.9 12 38.7 2.1 12 24.5 1.9 Item 3: Not having the phone be turned on 36 36.4 2.1 18 26.9 1.9 18 56.3 2.4 13 27.1 2.0 Item 4: Not allowed the full minutes of phone usage 36 36.4 2.1 21 31.3 1.9 15 46.9 2.3 16 33.3 2.0

PAGE 88

88Table 4-8. Continued Survey Participants Focus Group Participants Total Sample (N=106) Prison Participants (N=70) Jail-only Participants (N=36) Prison Participants (N=50) N % Effective or Very Effective Mean N % Effective or Very Effective Mean N % Effective or Very Effective Mean N % Effective or Very Effective Mean Item 5: Being forced to rush during eating 34 34.3 2.1 23 34.3 2.1 11 36.7 2.1 17 35.4 2.2 Item 6: Shortened access to the yard 40 40.4 2.3 25 36.8 2.2 15 48.4 2.5 19 38.8 2.2 Item 7: Reduced access to smoking and rec time 42 42.0 2.2 28 41.2 2.2 14 43.8 2.2 20 40.8 2.2 Item 8: Reduced access to the canteen 42 42.0 2.3 29 42.6 2.4 13 40.6 2.2 21 42.9 2.5 Item 9: Being yelled at 34 34.3 2.1 20 29.4 1.9 14 45.2 2.2 14 28.6 1.9 = .92

PAGE 89

89 the seventh item was reduced access to smoking a nd rec time, while the eighth item was reduced access to the canteen. For the ninth item, being ye lled at, the total sample (mean= 2.1) and jailonly participants (mean= 2.2) mean scores indicated a little e ffective, while the mean score for the remaining two groups, prison participants (mean= 1.9) and focus group participants (mean= 1.9), indicated not at all effective. Across all four groups, there were no major differences in mean scores for any of the items. In order to examine the percentage of par ticipants that perceived the scale items as effective, the response options effective and very effective were combined. Roughly 30% of the total sample (N= 30, 30.6%) a nd prison participants (N= 19, 29.2 %) perceived the first item, not told when it was relax count, to be effective while a slightly higher percentage of jail-only participants (N= 11, 33.3%) and focus group partic ipants (N= 15, 32.6%) did so (See Table 4-8). A higher percentage of jail-only participan ts (N= 12, 38.7%) indicated perceiving the second item, being forced to remain sitting up during relax count, more effectiv e than the three other groups, total sample (N= 28, 28.6%), prison participants (N= 16, 23.9%) and the subset focus group participants (N= 12, 24.5%). For the third item, not having the phone be turned on, the jail-only participants (N= 18, 56.3%) once again had a higher percentage of participants indicating the method as being effective. The total sample (N= 36, 36.4%) had the next highest percentage of participants indicating so, followed by prison participants (N= 18, 26.9%) and focus groups participants (N= 13, 27.1%). The fourth item, not allowed the full minutes of phone usage, had a similar pattern as the previous tw o items with jail-only participants (N= 15, 46.9%) having the largest percentage. The total sample (N= 36, 36.4%) had the next largest percentage of participants finding the me thod effective, followed by fo cus group participants (N= 16, 33.3%) and prison participants (N = 21, 31.3%). Approximately thirty -five percent of the total

PAGE 90

90 sample (N= 34, 34.3%) and focus group (N= 17, 35.4%) indicated the fifth item, being forced to rush during eating, was effective or very effectiv e in controlling inmates, while slightly fewer prison participants (N= 23, 34.3%) in dicated so, and slightly more jail-only participants (N= 11, 36.7%) indicated so. Across all groups, the sixth item, shortened access to the yard, had more participants that indica ted the method as being effective or very effective than previous methods. The jail-only participants (N= 15, 48.4%) had th e largest percentage, followed by the total sample (N= 40, 40.4%). The focus group particip ants (N= 19, 38.8%) and prison participants (N= 25, 36.8%) had slightly fewer participants indicati ng the methods effectiveness. Over 40% of all four groups, the total sample (N= 42, 42 %), prison participants (N= 28, 41.2%), jail-only participants (N= 14, 43.8%) and focus group par ticipants (N= 20, 40.8%), indicated that the seventh item, reduced access to smoking and rec time, was effective or very effective in controlling inmates. The subset focus group participants (N= 21, 42.9%) and prison participants (N= 29, 42.6%) both had slightly larger percentages of participants indica ting the effectiveness of the eighth item, reduced access to the cantee n, than the total sample (N= 42, 42%) and jailonly participants (N= 13, 40.6%). Th e ninth and final item, being yelled at, had more differences than the previous item. Jail-only participan ts (N= 14, 45.2%) had the la rgest percentage of participants indicating effec tiveness, followed by the total sample (N= 34, 34.3%). Roughly 30% of the prison partic ipants (N= 20, 29.4%) and focus group pa rticipants (N= 14, 28.6%) perceived the method as effective in punishing inmates. Summarizing the results, jail-only participants were the most likely to indicate the informal social control methods listed as effective, ex cept for the eighth item, reduced access to the canteen. The remaining three groups typically had a similar percentage of participants indicating effectiveness. The two items that had the hi ghest percentage of pa rticipants indicating

PAGE 91

91 effectiveness across all groups were reduced access to smoking and rec time and reduced access to the canteen. Focus Group Data: Methods of Informal Social Control For the second research question, the focus group results offered m inimal support for the survey findings. Some focus group participants liste d having experienced or witnessed one of the informal social control methods that the surv ey asked about. When participants were asked, what type of things did staff do to control inmates, some of th eir responses indicated that the phone was used as methods of control. For example, a 57-year-old white male who served a 5year-sentence said they coul d turn the phones off. This was echoed by a 38-year-old black male who served a 10-year-sente nce, who said correctional officers take the telephone from you. Another black male who served a 3-year-sentence stated they wouldnt cut the phone on sometimes, so you couldnt call out. A particip ant whose voice was not able to be identified said that correctional officers used telephone, ch ow hall, privilege system to control inmates. More interestingly, participants listed other methods of info rmal control that officers utilized that were not included in the survey. Access to the tele vision was one of those methods. For example, a white male from Clearwater stat ed they would cut your privilegestelevision while a black male from Gainesville said they take the TV from you. Another method of control that was not included in the survey but brought up by a 46year-old black male who resided in Gainesvi lle, was access to their mail. He stated, they wouldnt give you your mail, they would hold it. A 57-year-old white male from the Clearwater focus group, shared perhaps the most interesting methods that was not included in the survey. He described, jail house loaf, which is every, all th e food they would normally get, they put in a blender. Anything from main course to dessert ge ts blended together as punishment for throwing food.

PAGE 92

92 Unfortunately none of the focus group questi ons asked the participants whether they perceived the informal social c ontrol methods as bei ng effective. Overall, there was minimal support for the survey results found from the focus groups, perhaps in great part due to the lack of focus group questions regarding informal social control, which is a limitation of this study. Most of the participants did not give example of informal soci al control methods, but some did and even listed some methods that were not included in the survey. Correlations and Regressions: Meth ods of Informal Social Control After exam ining the frequencies for measures of informal methods of social control occurrence across all samples, correlations we re examined (See Table 4-9). There were six independent variables: age, race, years of sc hool, month out, months in, and crime type. The dependent variables were the limit access contro l scale, the removal control scale and the eight total scale items that constituted them. No significant correlations were found for the prison participants and focus group part icipants. For the total sample, a significant relationship was found for the limit access control scale, years of school and mont hs in prison/jail. Years of school indicated a negative correlation, mean ing as years of school increased, reported experiences with the scale items decreased. Months in prison/jail had a positive correlation, so as months in increased so did the reported experi ences with scale items. No other significant relationship was found for the total sample. For the jail-only partic ipants, the first item of the limit access control scale was found to have a si gnificant relationship with age and months out. The negative correlation indicated as age and mo nths out increased the participants were less likely to report being forced to rush during ea ting. The second limit access control scale item, shortened access to the yard, was only found to have a significant re lationship for jail-only participants in age and months out. As in the case with the pr evious scale item, the correlation was negative and indicated that as age and months out increased th e participants were less likely

PAGE 93

93Table 4-9. Correlations of Inform al Methods of Social Control Total Sample (N=106) Prison Participants (N=70) Age Race Years of School Months Out Months In Crime Type Age Race Years of School Months Out Months In Crime Type Limit Access Control Scale .09 -.16 -.22* -.00 .27* -.06 .04 -.09 -.22 -.04 .18 .01 Item 1: Being forced to rush during eating .14 -.01 -.12 -.10 .29** -.07 .02 .06 -.08 -.18 .15 .00 Item 2: Shortened access to the yard -.02 -.12 -.03 .01 .19* .01 .11 -.12 -.05 .03 .23 -.01 Item 3: Reduced access to smoking and rec time .03 -.15 -.29** -.02 .13 -.09 -.05 -.14 -.29* -.05 .08 .02 Item 4: Reduced access to the canteen .12 -.23*-.19 .13 .19 .02 .10 -.16 -.29* .12 .10 .04 Removal Control Scale -.16 -.19 -.03 .14 -.01 -.11 -.24* -.10 -.09 .15 -.14 -.06 Item 1: Not told when it was relax count -.21 .02 .19 .06 -.10 .06 -.22 .16 .26* .05 -.21 .08 Item 2: Being forced to remain sitting up during relax count -.01 -.07 -.08 .11 .05 -.13 -.17 -.09 -.17 .09 -.10 -.05 Item 3: Not having the phone be turned on -.07 -.16 -.17 .08 .08 -.05 -.11 -.12 -.25* .08 .01 -.08 Item 4: Not allowed the full minutes of phone usage -.19 -.31*-.06 .16 -.06 -.14 -.15 -.27*-.08 .20 -.08 .33 p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001

PAGE 94

94Table 4-9. Continued Jail-only Participan t (N= 36) Focus Group Participants (N=50) Age Race Years of School Months Out Months In Crime Type Age Race Years of School Months Out Months In Crime Type Limit Access Control Scale -.46* -.16 -.21 -.26 -.28 -.13 -.13 -.11 -.24 .19 .11 .12 Item 1: Being forced to rush during eating -.43* .08 -.24 -.39* -.14 -.03 -.24 -.01 -.04 .08 .05 .10 Item 2: Shortened access to the yard -.48* -.09 .06 -.37* -.08 .06 .06 -.04 -.04 .19 .19 .01 Item 3: Reduced access to smoking and rec time -.14 -.11 -.26 -.08 -.23 -.26 -.14 -.19 -.34* .12 .07 .13 Item 4: Reduced access to the canteen -.33 -.28 .13 .12 -.14 .06 -.08 -.09 -.32* .21 .02 .13 Removal Control Scale -.42* -.30 .17 .11 -.05 -.16 -.29* -.09 -.13 .11 -.11 .14 Item 1: Not told when it was relax count -.42* -.24 .04 .10 -.23 .03 -.31* .15 .26 .01 -.21 .17 Item 2: Being forced to remain sitting up during relax count -.20 .09 .16 .12 -.01 -.16 -.26 -.12 -.26 .26 -.04 -.05 Item 3: Not having the phone be turned on -.39* -.20 .15 -.12 .03 .05 -.12 -.09 -.26 .05 .00 .16 Item 4: Not allowed the full minutes of phone usage -.31 -.47*.00 .15 .05 -.20 -.01 -.24 -.11 -.04 -.02 -.03 p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001

PAGE 95

95Table 4-10. Predicting Informal Methods of Social Control Total Sample Jail-only Participants DV: Limit Access Control Scale b B SE Years of School -.107* -.231 .047 Months In .003* .252 .001 Model R .110 Model R Adjusted .089 Model F 5.364** Model df 2,87 DV: Being forced to rush during eating b B SE Age -.062* -.401 .027 Months Out -.047 -.259 .031 Model R .296 Model R Adjusted .242 Model F 5.468* Model df 2,26 DV: Shortened access to the yard b B SE Age -.036 -.309 .021 Months Out -.036 -.264 .024 Model R .220 Model R Adjusted .162 Model F 3.799* Model df 2 ,27 p< .05 ** p<.01 *** p<.001

PAGE 96

96 to report being granted less acce ss to the rec yard. No other si gnificant relationships were found for the jail-only participants. To further examine whether the items found to have a signifi cant correlation were predictors, after other va riables were controlled, ordinary le ast squares (OLS) regressions were run (See Table 4-10). First, using the total sample, years of school and months in were examined for their predictive value for the limit access contro l scale. In both cases, they were found to be significant, showing with an incr ease in years of school (b= -.107) the less likely the total sample was to indicate experiencing the limit access cont rol survey items. However, as months in prison/jail (b= .003) increased so did the likelih ood that participants in dicated experiencing the methods. Though significance was found, the impact of months in prison/jail on the dependent variable was very small, almost non-existent. Us ing the jail-only participants, regressions were run to determine whether age and months out we re predictors of expe riencing the method, being forced to rush during eating. Months out (b= -.04 7) was not found to be a predictor but age (b= .062) was, when both were in the model. As age increased the likeli hood of reporting having experienced the methods decreased. However, the difference was quite small. The final regression was run, once again, using age and months out of prison/jail but this time as possible predictors of the method, shortened access to the yard. Neither variable was found to be predictors at a significant level. When examining the reported experiences of in formal methods of control, there were few significant relationships found for the total sample and jail-only sample. None were found for the prison participants and focus gr oup participants. Those relationships were then examined for their predictive value. In the case of the total sample, years of school was found to be significant but have a negative relationship with limit access control scale, while months in was also

PAGE 97

97 found to be significant but have a positive relationship. For the jail-only participants, age was a predictor for reporting experiencing being forced to rush during eating, with older jail-only participants being less likely to report experience. The focus gr oup data did not offer any support for the survey data, since none of the relations hips were found to be significant. Also, in reviewing the focus group data there appeared to be no pattern in the type of responses and type of respondents1. Respondents ranged in race, age and le ngth of sentence serviced in prison. Correlations and Regressions: Methods of Informal Soc ial Control on Others The scales and scale items that measure the reported frequenc y of witnessing other inmates being punished by methods of informal social control were also examined (See Table 4-11). The previously listed six independent items were once again used, and the limit access control for others scale and the removal control for others scale, with their nine total scale items served as the dependent variables. No significant relati onships were found for prison participants, jailonly participants and focus group pa rticipants when corr elations were run. For the total sample, the first item for the l imit access control for others scale, being forced to rush during eating, age and months in had a significant correlation, both indicating a posit ive relationship. The removal control for others scale, years of sc hool and months in had a significant correlation. Years of school had a negative relationship, mean ing an increase in years of school the less reporting of witnessing the scales items, while m onths in had a positive relationship, meaning as the amount of months in prison/ja il increased so did the reported witnessing of scale items being used on others. OLS regression was used to examine whether any of the previously listed items were significant predictors (See Table 4-12). The fi rst regression used dependent variables, being 1 The answers given during focus groups sessions by participants about methods of informal social control methods utilized by correctional officers to control inmates were listed in a previous section.

PAGE 98

98 Table 4-11. Correlations of Informal Me thods of Social Control for Others Total Sample (N=106) Prison Participants (N=70) Age Race Years of School Months Out Months In Crime Type Age Race Years of School Months Out Months In Crime Type Limit Access Control for Others Scale -.07 -.01.00.10 -.05 -.16 -.10 .03-.02 .13 -.17 -.13 Item 1: Being forced to rush during eating .28* -.07-.11-.01 .34**-.14 .01 -.06-.11 -.12 .18 -.02 Item 2: Shortened access to the yard -.02 -.03-.28**.03 .07 -.07 -.13 -.03-.35**.02 -.02 -.02 Item 3: Reduced access to smoking and rec time -.07 -.11-.11-.09 .12 -.21* -.08 -.11-.14 -.10 .09 -.25* Item 4: Reduced access to the canteen .16 -.13-.21*.05 .19 -.14 .10 -.13-.24 .04 .07 -.11 Removal Control for Others Scale .13 -.11-.23*-.00 .24*-.17 -.02 -.11-.27*-.05 .11 -.12 Item 1: Not told when it was relax count -.05 -.01.07.01 .01 -.09 .01 .09.07 .02 -.03 -.18 Item 2: Being forced to remain sitting up during relax count .04 -.02-.14.02 -.01 -.15 -.00 -.06-.25*.01 -.12 .03 Item 3: Not having the phone be turned on -.04 -.06-.01.12 -.12 -.13 -.11 .03-.04 .13 -.25*-.03 Item 4: Not allowed the full minutes of phone usage -.06 -.01-.04.16 -.05 -.27**-.12 .01-.02 .10 -.11 -.22 Item 5: Being yelled at -.21* .01.06.05 -.07 .00 -.19 .01.06 .07 -.15 -.01 p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001

PAGE 99

99Table 4-11. Continued Jail-only Participan t (N= 36) Focus Group Participants (N= 50) Age Race Years of School Months Out Months In Crime Type Age Race Years of School Months Out Months In Crime Type Limit Access Control for Others Scale -.41* -.02.09 -.17 -.02 -.18 -.21 .13 -.04 -.02 -.26 -.05 Item 1: Being forced to rush during eating -.09 .15-.14 -.09 -.14 -.21 -.22 -.08 -.06 -.15 .09 .12 Item 2: Shortened access to the yard -.32 .12-.06 -.23 -.13 -.11 -.06 .02 -.39* .18 -.02 .16 Item 3: Reduced access to smoking and rec time -.36* -.06-.06 -.33 -.23 -.12 .00 -.19 -.13 -.13 .13 -.17 Item 4: Reduced access to the canteen -.30 .00-.12 -.35 -.03 -.09 .09 -.08 -.25 .02 .03 -.03 Removal Control for Others Scale -.34 .06-.13 -.31 -.18 -.18 -.12 -.12 -.27 -.03 .08 .03 Item 1: Not told when it was relax count -.36* -.21.05 -.10 -.04 .10 -.07 .19 .09 -.00 -.02 -.22 Item 2: Being forced to remain sitting up during relax count -.18 .14.15 -.14 .01 -.37* -.10 -.05 -.29* .20 -.17 -.01 Item 3: Not having the phone be turned on -.13 -.17.09 .13 .08 -.25 -.25 .13 -.07 -.19 -.31* .08 Item 4: Not allowed the full minutes of phone usage -.24 -.01-.10 -.27 .11 -.35 .02 .08 -.08 -.04 -.17 -.16 Item 5: Being yelled at -.56* -.21 .05 -.10 -.02 .02 -.28 -.00 .11 -.02 -.26 .19 p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001

PAGE 100

100 Table 4-12. Predicting the Reported Witnessi ng Informal Methods of Social Control Total Sample DV: Being forced to rush during eating b B SE Age .007 .055 .015 Months In .006* .320 .002 Model R .125 Model R Adjusted .106 Model F 6.591** Model df 2, 92 DV: Removal Control for Others Scale b B SE Years of School -.109* -.248 .044 Months In .003* .231 .001 Model R .106 Model R Adjusted .086 Model F 5.348** Model df 2, 90 p< .05 ** p<.01 *** p<.001 forced to rush during eating, and age and months in as independent variables. Only months in prison/jail (b= .006) was found to be a significant predictor, with the more months in the more likely to report the witnessing of this method being used on other inmates. Significance was found but the impact of months in prison/jail was almost non-existent. The second regression found that both independent variables, years of school (b= -.109) and mont hs in (b= .003), were significant predictors for the removal control fo r others scale. With an increase in years of school there was a decrease in the reported witnes sing of scale items, while with an increase in the amount of time in there was an increase in th e reported witnessing. No other regressions were run since no other significant relationships were found. There were few significant relationships found when examining the reported witnessing of informal social control methods being used on other inmates. There were none found for prison participants, jail-only participants and focus group participan ts. For the total sample, the significant relationships th at were found were then examined for their predictive value. Months

PAGE 101

101 in was found to be the only signifi cant predictor fo r witnessing others being forced to rush during eating, with the participants who have been in longer being more likely to report witnessing. As previously found, months in prison/jail was f ound significant but the impact was incredible small. Years of school and months in were both found to be predictors for the removal control for others scale. Years of school had a negative relationship and months in prison/jail had a positive relationship. Once again, the focus group da ta did not offer any support for the survey data. As in the previous case, none of the rela tionships that were found to be significant were with the focus group participants and after revi ewing the focus group data, there were no obvious patterns in the type of respons es and type of respondents. Correlations and Regressions: Perceived Effe ctiveness of I nformal Methods of Social Control The perceived effectiveness of the informal social control methods were the final items examined, first for relationships, then for pred ictive value (See Table 4-13). Six independent variables were used, and have been previously listed, while the perceived effectiveness scale and its nine scale items served as the dependent va riables. There were no significant relationships found for the jail-only participants and focus group participants. For the total sample, the first scale item, being forced to rush during eating, ra ce and years of school had a significant negative correlation. It appears that non-white participants were more likely to perceive it as effective, as were individuals who had less ye ars of school. There was also a correlation found between the fifth item, not told when it was relax count, ra ce and years of school. Th e relationships were, once again, negative indicating the same pattern. There were no other significant correlations found for the total sample. For the prison participants, th e only significant relationships that were found between the fifth item, not told when it wa s relax count, age and r ace. The relationships were both negative, and appeared to indicate that non-white were more likely to perceive the

PAGE 102

102Table 4-13. Correlations of Per ceived Effectiveness of Informal Methods of Social Control Total Sample (N=106) Prison Participants (N=70) Age Race Years of School Months Out Months In Crime Type Age Race Years of School Months Out Months In Crime Type Perceived Effectiveness Scale .00 -.28*-.19 .06 -.01 .02 .10 -.38*-.19 .09 .05 .10 Item 1: Being forced to rush during eating .05 -.23*-.21* .03 .10 -.05 .06 -.31*-.22 .03 .12 .05 Item 2: Shortened access to the yard -.05 -.21*-.08 .04 .00 .00 .07 -.31*-.09 .06 .09 .06 Item 3: Reduced access to smoking and rec time .08 -.29*-.12 .06 .09 -.04 .08 -.42*-.17 .08 .11 -.01 Item 4: Reduced access to the canteen .08 -.28*-.16 .08 .11 -.02 .10 -.43*-.19 .08 .09 .03 Item 5: Not told when it was relax count -.03 -.23*-.31** .05 -.13 -.02 -.08 -.32*-.32* .07 -.16 .06 Item 6: Being forced to remain sitting up during relax count .12 -.13 -.11 .12 -.02 .02 .15 -.18 -.07 .14 -.00 .05 Item 7: Not having the phone be turned on -.07 .01 -.10 .03 -.11 .04 .07 -.17 -.09 .08 .01 .11 Item 8: Not allowed the full minutes of phone usage .01 -.08 -.15 .07 -.03 .07 .14 -.19 -.15 .11 .04 .20 Item 9: Being yelled at -.09 -.20 -.11 -.03 -.07 .01 .62 .02 .21 .94 .73 .32 p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.001

PAGE 103

103Table 4-13. Continued Jail-only Participants (N=36) Fo cus Groups Participants (N=50) Age Race Years of School Months Out Months In Crime Type Age Race Years of School Months Out Months In Crime Type Perceived Effectiveness Scale .04 -.11 -.26 -.06 -.11 -.20 .14 -.55*-.16 .11 -.00 .10 Item 1: Being forced to rush during eating .00 .03 -.16 -.21 -.19 -.29 .08 -.44*-.21 .10 .08 .03 Item 2: Shortened access to the yard .03 -.09 -.07 .17 -.17 -.20 .05 -.40*-.05 .08 .03 .07 Item 3: Reduced access to smoking and rec time .14 .02 .08 -.09 -.02 -.09 .13 -.53*-.16 .07 .08 .01 Item 4: Reduced access to the canteen -.11 .12 -.03 -.19 -.30 -.10 .09 -.58*-.17 .24 .02 .09 Item 5: Not told when it was relax count .02 -.05 -.29 -.18 .01 -.13 .02 -.49*-.34 .08 -.14 .17 Item 6: Being forced to remain sitting up during relax count .24 -.07 -.26 .21 .24 -.05 .17 -.31*-.07 .18 .02 -.07 Item 7: Not having the phone be turned on .13 .31 -.12 -.04 -.08 -.21 .09 -.27 -.05 .14 -.03 .16 Item 8: Not allowed the full minutes of phone usage .09 .08 -.16 -.27 .01 -.22 .19 -.28 -.13 .05 -.01 .22 Item 9: Being yelled at .05 -.12 .05 -.26 -.11 -.22 -.09 -.34*-.14 -.10 -.14 .07 p<.05 **p<.01 ***p<.00

PAGE 104

104Table 4-14. Predicting Perceived Effectiveness of Informal Methods of Social Control Total Sample Prison Participants DV: Being forced to rush during eating b B SE Race -.378 -.175 .233 Years of School -.077 -.153 .055 Model R .072 Model R Adjusted .051 Model F 3.473* Model df 2,90 DV: Not told when it was relax count b B SE b B SE Race -.303 -.155 .199 -.442 .251 -.223 Years of School -.122* -.268 .046 -.100 .053 -.240 Model R .117 .145 Model R Adjusted .098 .117 Model F 6.039** 5.178** Model df 2,91 2,61 p< .05 ** p<.01 *** p<.001

PAGE 105

105 method as being effective, while the more years of school a participants had the less likely they were to perceive the method as being effective. In order to determine the predictive value, ordi nary least squares regression was used (See Table 4-14). Using the total sample, the survey it em, being forced to rush during eating, race and years of school were first examined. Neither i ndependent variable, race no r years of school, were found to be significant predictors when in the model together. The second regression examined race and years of education as predictors for th e item, not being told when it was relax count. Race was not found to be a predicator, but years of school (b= .122) remained significant. As the years of school increased the perceived effectiv eness of not being told when it was relax count decreased. Using the prison partic ipants, the same dependent and independent variables were examined. But in the case of prison participants race and years of school were not found to be predictors for the perceived effectiveness of not being told when it was relax count. No other regressions were run, because th e variables were not significan tly correlated at the bivariate level. Examining the perceived effectiveness of informal social control items and the scales found few significant relationships Jail-only participants and focus group participants had no significant relationships at the bivariate level. For the total sample, the significant relationships were found and then examined for their predictive value in a multivariate le vel. However, of the two survey items and two possible predictors years of school was found to be the only significant predictor. Participants who reported having received more years of education were less likely to perceive not bei ng told when it was relax count as effective. For the prison participants, the one scale item and two possibl e predictors produced no significant predictors. The data obtained during the focus group did not o ffer any support for the data obtained from the

PAGE 106

106 survey. None of the relationships were found to be significant for the focus groups participants and no focus group questions asked about perceive d effectiveness of informal social control methods. Summary This section described the results found duri ng the study. It discussed the findings about inm ate and correctional officer interactions, as well as what traits are used to describe correctional officers. Focus group data was used to further explain or lend credibility to the survey data. Next, findings into informal social control methods experienced by inmates or other inmates were described, as well as the perceive d effectiveness of those methods. The focus group data that pertained to this research question was also discussed. Tables were used to display data, and direct quotes from the focus group data were also used when applicable.

PAGE 107

107 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS This is the final section of th is study. First, the author disc usses a summ ary of the findings for both research questions and reviews the previ ous literature. Then, the author describes the limitations of the study and makes suggestions fo r future research. Finally, the author makes policy suggestions. Summary of Findings The first research question was what was the prison experience like for form er inmates regarding correctional officers and, what were their interactions w ith correctional officers like?. More often the survey data indicated former inma tes viewed their interac tions with correctional officers in a negative light than in a positive li ght, but in both cases the support was limited. However, this did not extend to jail-only participants, who were the least likely to view the interactions in a negative light, a nd most likely to view interactions with correctional officers as positive. The subset focus group participants were the most likely to report having unpleasant interactions with correctional o fficers. The remaining two groups, the total sample and the prison participants, generally had s lightly lower percentages in agreement than the focus group participants, but higher than jail-only participants. Similar survey results were found when examin ing former inmates view of correctional officers traits. Overall, there was some support found that former inmates were more likely to agree with traits that described correctional officers negatively than positively. The exception was jail-only participants, who were more likely to agree with positive traits being used to describe correctional officers than negative traits. Focus group participants were the most likely to agree with negative traits describing correctio nal officers, with the total sample and the participants having similar but lower percentages in agreement. The most agreement from

PAGE 108

108 participants was for the use of the word rude to describe correctional officers. Once again the findings were limited, since most participants neithe r agreed nor disagreed w ith any of the traits, positive or negative, being used to describe correctional officers. The results drawn from the focus group discus sions reiterated the survey findings. The number of focus group participants that indicated having negative interactions was greater than the number of focus group participants indicatin g positive interactions, but in both cases the number was small. The focus group participants o ffered more comments that indicated they felt correctional officers possessed ne gative traits. However, ther e was a little support indicating some believed correctional officers held positive traits. Using six demographics variable s, correlations and then regre ssions were run in order to determine whether any were predictors for the s cales measuring officer interactions and scale items, as well as the trait scales and scale items. From all the scales and scale items and for all four samples, the only significant predictor was years of school for the positive trait scale and its two scale items (e.g., patient and polite) for fo cus group participants. It appeared as years of school increased so did agreemen t with positive traits being us ed to describe correctional officers. The limited amount of focus group data available supported th is finding, since those participants that used positive descriptions to describe correctional officers indicated having attended at least twelve years of school. The results from this study offered some s upport for the previous literature on inmates experiences regarding corre ctional officers and their interactions with them. Previous research had indicated that the interac tions between inmates and correctional officers were mainly classified as unpleasant and punctuated by dist rust (Hemmens & Marquart, 2000; Toch, 1978). Interactions between inmates and correctional offi cers are often perceived as disrespectful from

PAGE 109

109 the perspective of inmates (Irwin, 2005). This study found some support for this. Though not overwhelming, across all samples some participants agreed with survey items that indicated negative interactions with officers. Previous literature had found that former inmates perspective of inmate-staff relations did not vary significantly based on ed ucation level, socioeconomic status, and criminal history, but did so ba sed on race and age (Hemmens & Marquart, 2000). This study also did not find personal demographic variables to be significant predictors for perceptions of inmate -staff interactions. The review of the literature suggested the bigge st contributor for nega tive interactions may be the negative views and opinions held by each group about one another (Grusky, 1959). It was found that, as suggested in the lite rature review, for the most part the former inmates did not hold positive views of correctional officers (Ross & Richards, 2002; Weinberg, 1942). Inmates often hold preconceived notions of the correctional officers as a group, which tend to be unfavorable and marked by suspicion (Grusky, 1959; Toch, 1978) The items that used negative adjectives to describe correctional officers received some s upport in the form of agreement from some participants across all samples, partia lly supporting previous research. Not all interactions and correctional officers ar e viewed as being bad or negative, however. Inmates may hold favorable views of officers (Hemmens & Marquart, 2000; Hepburn, 1985; Irwin, 2005). Inmates and staff do not always view each other as opposition (Streets, 1965). Though not overwhelming, this study did offer some support for this previous research as well. Across all groups, participants showed some agr eement for items that indicated inmates having positive interactions with inmates, as well as correctional officers holding positive traits. Overall, this study was able to answer the first research question, what was the prison experience like for former inmates regardi ng correctional officers and, what were their

PAGE 110

110 interactions with correctional officers like? by ex amining the responses of former inmates. It was found that some participants viewed interactions with correctional officers as negative experiences, and even fewer viewed the interacti ons as positive. Similar findings were found for the views of correctional officers. However, a ma jority of participants did not indicate having either negative interactions or holding nega tive views of correctional officers, or positive interactions or holding positive views of corre ctional officers. Though, this study offers some support for previous research, it suggests an exa ggeration on part of the previous literature, which often paints a picture of extreme dis like and negative experien ces with correctional officers. The respondents in this study were mo re ambivalent, possibly because they were no longer dealing with officers daily. The second research question asked, what methods of informal control did officers use to control inmates and what was their impact as ex perienced by former inmates? This study found some support for the occurrence of each of the nine informal controls discussed in the study, and some support for the methods perceived effectiven ess. In the case of the total sample, prison participants and focus group partic ipants, roughly one-third of the participants or more reported experiencing all nine methods of control half th e time or more, with the average percentage of participants being around 42%. The focus group pa rticipants were the most likely to report having experienced the methods. Th e jail-only participants were slightly less likely to report experiencing the methods. The survey item, bei ng forced to rush during eating, had the largest amount of reported agreement across all samples. In the case of witnessing other inmates being punished through methods of informal social control, overall the percentage of participants reported witnessing was slightly less than the percentage of participants that reported experiencing the methods themselves. Typically

PAGE 111

111 approximately 40% of the total sample, prison pa rticipants, and focus group participants reported witnessing the methods being used to control other inmates. Pris on participants were the most likely to report having witnessed other inmates being punished through the listed informal social control methods half the time or more. Jail-onl y participants were th e least likely to report witnessing, with an average of 30% indicating having witnessed the methods being used on other inmates. There appears to be only minor differen ces in the percentage of participants reporting having experienced the methods of informal soci al control and the witnessing the methods being used on other inmates. The results for examining the perceived effectiv eness of the nine listed informal social control methods found that the jail-only participants were most likely to indicate the methods as being effective, with an average of 43% of the participants indicating so. The remaining groups had a similar percentage of par ticipants indicating effectiveness, with approximately 34% of the participants indicating ef fectiveness. The two items that appeared to be found the most effective, based on the percentage of participants indicat ing effectiveness, were reduced access to smoking and rec time and reduced access to the canteen. There was minimal support for the survey resu lts found from the focus group data due to focus group questions not specifically asking about methods of informal social control. Most of the participants did not give examples of informal social control methods, but the few that did offered support to the survey findings. Participants also listed some informal social control methods that were not included in the survey, su ch as limiting access to the television, mail and the use of jail house loaf. Unfortunately none of the focus group questions asked the participants whether they perceived the informal social control met hods as being effective, so the focus group data can not be used to confirm or deny the survey data.

PAGE 112

112 Regressions were run in order to determine whether any of the six demographic variables were predictors for the scales and scale items that pertained to the second research question. There were no significant predicto rs found for prison participants or focus group participants for any of the scales and scale items For the jail-only pa rticipants, the only predictor found was age for reporting experiencing being forced to rush during eating, with older jail-only participants being less likely to report experience. However, there were more predic tors found for the total sample. For scales and scale items pertaining to the participants experiences with informal social control, years of school was found to be significant but have a ne gative relationship with limit access control scale, while months in was also found to be significant but have a positive relationship. For the witnessing of the methods be ing used on others, months in prison/jail was found to be a significant predictor for witnessing others being forced to rush during eating, with the participants who have been in longer being more likely to report witnessing. Months in was also found to be a predicator of the removal control for others scale, as did years of school, with years of school having a negative relationshi p and months in having a positive relationship. The only significant predictor found for the perceived effectiveness scale and its survey items was years in school. Participants who reported ha ving been in more years of school were less likely to perceive not being told when it was re lax count as an effective method of control. The focus group data did not offer any support for the survey data, since none of the relationships was found to be significant. Also, in reviewing the focus group data there appeared to be no pattern in the type of responses and the type of respondents. The participants that discussed methods of informal social control util ized by officers on them or other inmates varied in age, length of sentenced served, as well as race. Also, the questions were not written in a way

PAGE 113

113 that would necessarily elicit responses about informal social control methods utilized by correctional officers or the perceived effectiv eness of informal social control methods. This study offers support for the limited amount of literature regarding the use of informal social control methods. Previous literature has found that prisons could not operate efficiently if correctional officers responded to every infraction formally, since the process tends to be time consuming (Hewitt et al., 1984; Irwin, 2005; Marquart, 1986; Useem & Reisig, 1999). Correctional officers have the option of choosi ng to enforce the rules and regulations through either formal or informal social control methods (Fisher-Giorlando & Jiang, 2000; Marquart, 1986; Poole & Regoli, 1980a; Streets, 1965). Offi cers report a small fraction of the violations they actually observe (Hewitt et al., 1984). This suggests that officers may be using informal social control methods, which are the actions take n by correctional officers in order to discipline or punish inmates without resorting to official pr ocedures. Correctional officers also may tolerate minor inmate infractions and sanction inmates in an informal manner that does not require a great deal of effort and time from their pa rt (Useem & Reisig, 1999) This study found that former inmates reported being punished though met hods of informal social control or witnessing other inmates being punished through the methods. On average, at least 33% of the participants indicated experiencing the methods, meaning nearly one out of three inmates had been corrected through at least one of the methods. The witnessi ng of informal social control methods being utilized had similar numbers. These results s upport previously liter ature that points to correctional officers utilizing methods of informal social control as a way to try to control inmates. Besides being less of a burden in time and effo rt for correctional officers, informal social control methods may also be used since they ar e perceived to be eff ective. The correctional

PAGE 114

114 officer might be working based on the assumption that the formal forms of punishment they use might not make a difference in the inmates everyday status since the punishment is not immediate (Sykes, 1958). Informal social control me thods tend to be immediate, and remove or limit access to items or activities the inmate want s to engage in. With inmates having such few pleasure items or activities, the threat of the removal of those few pleasures or items is a powerful motivation for compliance with pris on rules and regulations (Sykes, 1958). With inmates being in a position of ex treme deprivation, the few privileg es and luxury items that they are able to have become very valuable to them (Irwin, 2005). Though this study did not examine what made the methods of informal social cont rol effective, it did examine whether the methods were perceived to be effective. Overall, all methods were found to be effective by nearly onefourth of the participants. This study built upon pr evious literature which had suggested that correctional officers utilized the informal social control methods since they believed them to be effective by finding that some former inmates reported the methods to be effective. By examining the responses from former inmate s, this study was able to answer the second research question which was, what methods of informal control did officers use to control inmates and what was their impact as experien ced by former inmates? It was found that some participants did report being punished by correctional officers through the use of methods of informal social control. There were also so me participants who re ported witnessing other inmates being punished through methods of informal social control. From the perspective of former inmates, all the methods had some particip ants indicating that the methods were effective in controlling inmates. Unfort unately, the focus group data did not offer much by way of support for the understanding of informal social cont rol methods use in prison, because no questions specifically addressed this issu e. However, this study offered support for previous research,

PAGE 115

115 which suggested that correctional officers utilized informal methods to control inmates. It would appear that these methods of c ontrol are being utilized in corr ectional facilities and detention centers to some extent. Study Limitations and Suggest ions for Future Research There are limitations associated with the st udy that limits the generalizability. The first limitation is that the entire sample was not compri sed of participants who had been incarcerated in a federal or state prison. Participants who had only been housed in jail were included in the survey. Though not part of the initial target samp le, the researcher was ab le to get access to jail participants and did not want to lose the opportunity to include them in the study. However, this greatly limited the generalizability of the study, since there were noticeable differences within the sample. The sentences served by jail-only pa rticipants were shorter than the rest of the sample, which may have affected the amount of interactions jail-only participants had with correctional officers and opportunities to experien ce methods of informal social control. In addition, jail officers may be diffe rent than prison officers. The second limitation of the study is that not a ll of the participants participated in focus groups. Over half of the sample did not participate in a focus group. One group refused, while another group, comprised of 49 individuals, were not afforded the opportunity to do so because of inadequate space. The focus group results were very limited in their ability to be generalized to the sample or beyond. Another li mitation that is associated with the focus groups is that not all focus group participants spoke or offered commen ts during the group. It wa s often found that the same three or four participants spoke, also li miting the ability of the focus group results to generalize to others. There were also limitations associated with the questions asked during the focus groups. There were no direct questions asking about informal social control methods, just general

PAGE 116

116 questions asking about control methods utilized by correctional officers. There were also no questions asking participan ts if they perceived the methods of control that correctional officers implement were effective or what the impact of those methods had. The absence of such questions did not allow for the thorough examina tion of informal social control this study had hoped to accomplish. Other limitations involved the construction of survey. There were several demographic variables that should have been included but were not. For example, most of the study participants indicated having re ceiving a high school diploma or a GED. However, there was no measure that asked participants to indicate whether they r eceived their GED while being incarcerated or while living on the streets. This may be important because the type of inmate who would try to obtain a GED during his period of incarceration may be a different type of inmate than one who does not. He may be less likely to have negative interactions or place himself in a situation that requir es the correctional officer to puni sh or control him. There were also no measures that allowed for the examination of approximately how much time and opportunity each inmate had to interact with corre ctional officers and an inmates contact with officers can vary from frequent to very rare (Fisher-Giorlando & Jiang 2000; Grusky, 1959). But perhaps, more significan tly, there were no measures that asked about prior incarceration history. Inmates who have been incarcerated more than once may have had more opportunities to have interactions with correctional offi cers, as well as experience or witness the utilization of informal social control methods. Also, the type of pers on who has been incarcerated multiple times is more than likely a different type of person than someone who has only b een incarcerated once. Lastly, the variable that was meant to measure the custody level of the facilities the participants were housed at was unable to be used, and is a limitation for the study. Participants seemed

PAGE 117

117 confused about what was being asked. Some liste d the name of the facilities they had been housed in, while others circled the listed exampl e custody level. The variable should have been split into two separate variables. First, asking participants how many facilities had they been housed in, and then asking them to list those facil ities by name in the order of which they were housed. This would have allowed the researcher to look up the facilities and verify the custody levels of the facilities, as well as control fo r how many facilities a par ticipant had been housed in. The current study does not allow for the comparison of individuals who had been housed in many facilities versus just one facility, or for co mparison of differences in facility classification levels. Another limitation is that the survey only as ked participants about eight reactions they might have had during their interactions with co rrectional officers. There should have been more possible reactions or at least an option for the participants to write in the reaction they most commonly felt during interactions. The same lim itation is true for the questions asking participants about possible correc tional officers traits. There were only ten possible traits listed, when either more possible traits should have been included or an option for participants to list some possible traits. Though this study allowed for the examination of nine informal social control methods, there may be more informal social control methods th at correctional officers utilize. Some focus group participants discussed other methods that correctional officers used. Perhaps the most obvious informal social contro l method that was excluded was the removal of the television. A variable that asked participants about the use of the television as a control method should have been included as well as an option for participants to list other informal social control methods they experienced or witnessed being used.

PAGE 118

118 Future research should first address the limita tions associated with the study. The sample should be comprised of only participants who have been incarcerated in a federal or state prison, or participants who have only b een incarcerated in jail. If one wanted to compare the two groups, a larger sample of both would be required. Al so, all participants s hould be afforded the opportunity to participate a nd share in a focus group. As far as the measures used in the study, future research should expand the focus group questions and include questions about informal social control methods and what the perceived effectiveness or impact the methods of control th at correctional officers use have. In the future, the survey should include a variable that indicates whether the pa rticipant received his GED in prison, prior incarceration history, a measure that allows for the examination of how much time and opportunity each inmate had to interact with correctional officers, a measure for how many facilities a participan t had been housed in, and the na mes of specific facilities. Also, future research should try to measure more possible reactions or have an option for the participants to write in the reaction they most commonly felt during th eir interactions with correctional officers. Additional possible correcti onal officers trait should also be measured. The two traits suggested during the focus gr oup, unprofessional and judgmental, should be included as well as an option for participants to list more possible traits. At a minimum, a variable that asked par ticipants about the use of the televi sion as a control method should added. The two other informal social control methods th at were suggested during the focus groups were jail house loaf and the withholding of mail might be considered for inclusion in future research, as well as an option for participants to list other informal social control methods they experienced or witnessed being used.

PAGE 119

119 Going beyond the current study, future research should also extend into prison or jails. Inmate and correctional officers interactions and correctional officers use of informal social control methods should be studied from the pe rspective of current inmates, as well as correctional officers. Though inmates perception of correctional officers have been examined from the perspective of former inmates, examin ing the responses of current inmates may allow for different responses than thos e from former inmates since the interactions and control methods would be more current and not require participants to draw from their memory (Hemmens & Marquart, 2000). To date, few studies have e xplored staffs attitudes and perceptions on interactions and other asp ects of prison life, so there is a need to expand this research to include correctional officers (Crouch & Alpe rt, 1980; Hemmens & Marquart, 2000). The final suggestion for future research is th at informal social control methods and their context for which they occur should as be exte nded to include female participants. Female former inmates and inmates may have very diffe rent experiences when it comes to inmate and correctional officer interactions in comparison to male former inmates and inmates (Bloom, Owen & Covington, 2003). Studies ha ve shown that correctional o fficers often indicate having a preference for male inmates, since female inmates often make more demands, more complaints and are less likely to follow orders (Pollock, 1986; Rasche, 2000). Also males and females have different styles of communicating (Tannen, 1990) With a preference for male inmates and differences between communication styles, the possibility that female inmates have a very different perception of interactio ns with correctional officers and views of correctional officers is quite great. More importantly though, the informal social control methods that officers utilize for controlling female inmates may be different than those used for male inmates. If different

PAGE 120

120 methods of control are being used for females, they need to be identified and effectiveness examined. Policy Implications One of the hopes of this study was for th e author to be able to m ake policy recommendations. This study examined nine possibl e methods of informal social control: not told when it was relax count, be ing forced to remain sitting up during relax count, not having the phone be turned on, not allowed the full minutes of phone usage, being forced to rush during eating, shortened access to the yard, reduced ac cess to smoking and rec time, reduced access to the canteen and being yelled at. It was found that there was some indication that all methods are utilized by correctional officers to some degree based on self re ported experiences or reported witnessing of other inmates experiences. With some evidence that informal methods of social control already being utilize d, prison administrators may wa nt to consider officially implementing these methods as part of their form al control methods and procedures. Instead of having corrective consultations (CCs) and disciplinary report s (DRs) being the methods by which inmates are corrected or pun ished, have more options officia lly available for officers to correct and punish inmates. Thes e informal social control methods offer a happy-medium for situations in which the officer feels the inmate needs to be corrected but the infraction does not warrant formal punishment. Since the methods are already being utilized to some extent, including the methods into official procedures may also protect the officers from grievances and other inmate legal retaliation that claim discrimination on the part of the officer. Though not overwhelming, a number of participants perceived these methods to be effective. Typically at least one out of three pa rticipants felt the method was effective, and in most cases the number was higher. This also lend s support for their use because at least in some of the cases the inmates are vi ewing the method as a punishment. For the method of control to

PAGE 121

121 have an impact, the individual must feel that the punishment is punishment (Sykes, 1958). The two methods that were found to be perceived as the most effective were reduced access to smoking and the rec time and reduced access to the canteen. Across all four samples, both methods received over 40% of the participants indicating they perceived the method to be effective. Prison administrators may want to al low dorm officers to have a say regarding whether inmates in their dorms get access to smoking, r ec time and the canteen, instead of allowing the general population to have the same access. It w ould give the dorm officer more say and control by being able to use items perceived as a reward or privilege by over 40% of the inmates. There is evidence that correctional officers al ready utilize the methods, and some former inmates did perceive the methods to be effectiv e. Correctional officers already are outnumbered by inmates, and if the methods are effective in help ing control one-third of those inmates, that is one-third less inmates the correctional officers have to formally sanction. With prison populations increasing, prison administrators ma y need to be examining what works for controlling some inmates versus trying to find the illusive what works for controlling all inmates. Summary This study offered an exploratory exam inati on into informal social control methods utilized by correctional officers and their perceived effectiveness. In order to examine the circumstances and situations surrounding informal methods of control, inmate and correctional officers interactions and correctional officer tra its from the perspective of former inmates was also examined. It was found that some of the part icipants viewed interac tions with correctional officers as negative experiences and described correctional offi cers using negative traits, and even fewer viewed the interactions and traits he ld by correctional officers as positive. Reviewing the literature, perhaps there is some exaggeration, which often paints a picture of extreme dislike and negative experiences from the perspective of inmates on correctional officers. It was also

PAGE 122

122 found that some of the participants did indicat e correctional officers us e methods of informal social control to punish or cont rol inmates. From th e perspective of former inmates, all the methods included in the study had some participants that indicated each method was effective in controlling inmates. Policy s uggestions were made followi ng a discussion of the studys limitations and recommendations for future resear ch. This study only started the examination and exploration into the use of inform al social control met hods as part of prison management, much more is needed.

PAGE 123

123 APPENDIX A SURVEY Perceptions of Prison Life ___________ Code Number Circle or fill in the response th at best fits your answer. 1. How old are you? (indicate age) 2. What is your sex? (circle one) Male 1 Female 0 3. How would you describe your race and/or ethnicity? (circle one) White 1 Hispanic 3 Black/African American 2 Other 4 Specify ________________ 4. What is the highest level of education you have obtained? (circle one) None 1 10thgrade 11 1st grade 2 11th grade 12 2nd grade 3 High school 13 3rd grade 4 GED 14 4th grade 5 Some college 15 5th grade 6 Associates degree 16 6th grade 7 Bachelors degree 17 7th grade 8 8th grade 9 9th grade 10 Other 18 (Specify)__________________

PAGE 124

124 5. How long since you have been out of prison? #____________________ months #____________________ years 6. How long were you in prison? (specify number of months or years) # ___________________ months #____________________ years 7. What state(s) were you incarcerated in? 1. __________________________________________________________ 2. __________________________________________________________ 3. __________________________________________________________ 4. __________________________________________________________ 5. __________________________________________________________ 8. What level of security were the fa cility (facilities) you were housed in? (minimum, medium, close, etc.) 1. ____________________________________________________ 2. ____________________________________________________ 3. ____________________________________________________ 4. ____________________________________________________ 5. ____________________________________________________

PAGE 125

125 9. How long have you resided/did you reside in the half-way house where you live (or lived)? # ___________________ months #____________________ years 10. For your last incarceration, what offense(s) were you convicted of? (Please list the offense carrying the longest sentence first) 1. __________________________________________________________ 2. __________________________________________________________ 3. __________________________________________________________ 4. __________________________________________________________ 5. __________________________________________________________ 6. __________________________________________________________ 7. __________________________________________________________ 8. __________________________________________________________ 9. __________________________________________________________ 10. _________________________________________________________

PAGE 126

126 Circle the response that best fits your answer. Please remember to answer these questions based on yo ur last incarceration experience. Strongly Disagree Disagree Unsure Agree Strongly Agree 11. Officers were more likely to formally punish inmates through corrective consultation (CCs). (circle one) 1 2 3 4 5 12. Officers were more likely to formally punish inmates through disciplinary reports (DRs). (circle one) 1 2 3 4 5 13. Officers were more likely to informally punish inmates through taking away privileges. ( circle one) 1 2 3 4 5 14. I would have rather received informal sanctions than formal sanctions. (circle one) 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 127

127 Now I would like to know about your experiences during your last incarceration. Which informal sanctions did YOU receive by officers? (Circle the response that best fits your answer.) Never Sometimes Half the Time Usually Always 15. Not told when it was relax count. (circle one) 1 2 3 4 5 16. Being forced to remain sitting up during relax count. (circle one) 1 2 3 4 5 17. Not having the phone be turned on. (circle one) 1 2 3 4 5 18. Not allowed the full minutes of phone usage. (circle one) 1 2 3 4 5 19. Being forced to rush during eating. (circle one) 1 2 3 4 5 20. Shortened access to the yard. (circle one) 1 2 3 4 5 21. Reduced access to smoking, and rec time through not opening the yard. (circle one) 1 2 3 4 5 22. Reduced access to the canteen. (circle one) 1 2 3 4 5 23. Being yelled at. (circle one) 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 128

128Now I would like to ask you about how other inmates were treated. How often were the following informal sanctions utilized by officers towards OTHER inmates? (Circle the resp onse that best fit your answer.) Never Sometimes Half the Time Usually Always 24. Not being told when it was relax count. (circle one) 1 2 3 4 5 25. Being forced to remain sitting up during relax count. (circle one) 1 2 3 4 5 26. Not having the phone be turned on. (circle one) 1 2 3 4 5 27. Not allowed the full minutes of phone usage. (circle one) 1 2 3 4 5 28. Being forced to rush during eating. (circle one) 1 2 3 4 5 29. Shortened access to the yard. (circle one) 1 2 3 4 5 30. Reduced access to smoking, and rec time through not opening the yard. (circle one) 1 2 3 4 5 31. Reduced access to the canteen. (circle one) 1 2 3 4 5 32. Being yelled at. (circle one) 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 129

129 How effective do you believe th e following sanctions were at informally CONTROLLING THE INMATES during your last incarceration experience? (Circle the response that best fits your answer.) Not at all Effective A Little Effective Effective Very Effective 33. Not being told when it was relax count. (circle one) 1 2 3 4 34. Being forced to remain sitting up during relax count. (circle one) 1 2 3 4 35. Not having the phone be turned on. (circle one) 1 2 3 4 36. Not allowing the full minutes of phone usage. (circle one) 1 2 3 4 37. Being forced to rush during eating. (circle one) 1 2 3 4 38. Shortening access to the yard. (circle one) 1 2 3 4 39. Reducing access to smoking, and rec time through not opening the yard. (circle one) 1 2 3 4 40. Reducing access to the canteen. (circle one) 1 2 3 4 41. Being yelled at. (circle one) 1 2 3 4

PAGE 130

130Correctional officers often inte ract with inmate s for a variety of reasons. I am interested in knowing why correctional officers interacted with YOU on an informal level. (Circle the response that best fits your answer.) When an officer interact ed with me I thought : Strongly Disagree Disagree Unsure Agree Strongly Agree 42. He/she wanted something. (circle one) 1 2 3 4 5 43. He/she was trying to get out of work. (circle one) 1 2 3 4 5 44. He/she was trying to hit on me. (circle one) 1 2 3 4 5 45. He/she was trying to get information from me. (circle one) 1 2 3 4 5 46. He/she was trying to get information about me. (circle one) 1 2 3 4 5 47. He/she was concerned about my problems. (circle one) 1 2 3 4 5 48. He/she was sincere in his/her interaction. (circle one) 1 2 3 4 5 49. He/she was no different than anyone else. (circle one) 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 131

131 I felt most officers were: (Circle the response that best fits your answer. For each question, circle one answer.) Strongly Disagree Disagree Unsure Agree Strongly Agree 50. Educated 1 2 3 4 5 51. Criminal 1 2 3 4 5 52. Fair 1 2 3 4 5 53. Patient 1 2 3 4 5 54. Polite 1 2 3 4 5 55. Wise 1 2 3 4 5 56. Violent 1 2 3 4 5 57. Religious 1 2 3 4 5 58. Cruel 1 2 3 4 5 59. Rude 1 2 3 4 5 60. Drug abusers 1 2 3 4 5 Finally, we would like to ask you questions abou t religion. We are hoping to learn more about th e role of religion in prison. Circle or fill in the response that best fit your answer. 61. How would you describe your reli gious preference/denomination now? (circle one) None 1 Protestant 3 Catholic 2 Other 4 (Specify)__________________ 62. Before you went to prison, how important was religion in your life? (circle one) Not at all important A little important Important Very important 1 2 3 4

PAGE 132

132 Never 1 Weekly 4 Seldom 2 More than once a week 5 63. In the year before you were incarcerated, how often did you go to religious services? (circle one) Monthly 3 Daily 6 64. While you were in prison, how important was religion in your life? (circle one) Not at all important A little important Important Very important 1 2 3 4 65. How often did you go to religious services while in prison? (circle one) Never 1 Weekly 4 Seldom 2 More than once a week 5 Monthly 3 Daily 6 66. Since you left prison, how important is religion in your life? (circle one) Not at all important A little important Important Very important 1 2 3 4 67. Since you left prison, how often do you go to religious services? (circle one) Never 1 Weekly 4 Seldom 2 More than once a week 5 Monthly 3 Daily 6

PAGE 133

133 Please tell me how much religion affected your life while you were incarcerated. Circle the response that best fits your answer. Strongly disagree Disagree Unsure Agree Strongly Agree 68. I turned to religion to relieve guilt. (circle one) 1 2 3 4 5 69. I attended religious services to gain access to outsiders. (circle one) 1 2 3 4 5 70. I turned to religion to deal with the loss of my freedom. (circle one) 1 2 3 4 5 71. I turned to religion for safety. (circle one) 1 2 3 4 5 72. I turned to religion to build relationships with other inmates. (circle one) 1 2 3 4 5 73. I turned to religion to learn a new way of living. (circle one) 1 2 3 4 5 74. I turned to religion because of a lack of anything else to do. (circle one) 1 2 3 4 5 75. I turned to religion because it reminds me of home. (circle one) 1 2 3 4 5 76. I turned to religion to forget I am in prison. (circle one) 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 134

134 Strongly disagree Disagree Unsure Agree Strongly Agree 77. I turned to religion to get out of work. (circle one) 1 2 3 4 5 78. I turned to religion as something to do. (circle one) 1 2 3 4 5 79. I turned to religion to receive privileges. (circle one) 1 2 3 4 5 80. I turned to religion because staff treated me better. (circle one) 1 2 3 4 5 81. I turned to religion to rebuild family relationships. (circle one) 1 2 3 4 5 82. I turned to religion to get out of the hot/cold weather. (circle one) 1 2 3 4 5 83. My turning to religion was an act. (circle one) 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 135

135 APPENDIX B FOCUS GROUP QUESTIONS 1. How would you describe your pr ison experience? (Explain) 2. In your experience, what type of things did staff do to control inmates? (Please explain. Can you give us some examples?) 3. What were your interactions with staff like? (Examples) 4. What were the interactions between staff and other inmates like? 5. Did officers mess with you? With other inmate s? How? Please give us some examples of how this happened. 6. Did some officers treat you differently th an others? How so? Why do you think this happened? (Explain) 7. When you did something wrong, would you be p unished the same way each time? How were you generally punished? The same as ot her inmates? Why or why not? (Explain) 8. If you were talking to your friends, how woul d you describe the staff in the prison where you were? What about the inte ractions you had with them? 9. What would you like people who do research on inmate-staff interactions to know that we have not discussed already? 10. Now Id like to ask you some questions about your experiences since you have been out of prison. First, have any of you re-offended since you have been out? If so, what have you done and why? If not, why not? 11. What do you think will keep you from re-offe nding in the future? What do you need help with? (Family, friends, church?) 12. Are you religious? If so, how has this impact ed your attitude and experience since you have left prison? 13. If you are religious, what do you like most about your religion? 14. What do you believe you must do to lead a religious life? 15. Do you feel you have been forgiv en? Why do you feel this way? 16. Have you ever claimed to be religious to get benefits from the system (e.g., in prison, to gain entry to a halfway house, etc.?) 17. Is there anything else youd like to tell me about your experiences since you left prison?

PAGE 136

136 LIST OF REFERENCES Austin, J., Bruce, M.A., Carroll, L., McCall, P.L ., & Richards, S.C. (2001). The Use of Incarceration in the United States. Critical Criminology, 10, 17-41. Bloom, B., Owen, B., & Covington, S. (2003). Gender-Responsive Strategies: Research, Practice, and Guiding Prin ciples for Women Offenders Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections. Brown, B.S., DuPont, R.L., Kozel, N.J., & Spevace k, J.D. (1971). Staff Conceptions of Inmate Characteristics: A Comparison of Treatment and Custodial Staffs at Two Differing Institutions. Criminology, 9, 316-329. Craddock, A. (1992). Formal Social Control in Prisons: An Exploratory Examination of the Custody Classification Process. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 27, 63-84. Cressey, D.R. (1959). Contradict ory Directives in Complex Organizations: The Case of the Prison. Administrative Science Quarterly, 4, 1-9. Crouch, B.M., & Alpert, G.P. (1980). Prison Guards Attitudes Toward Components of the Criminal Justice System. Criminology, 18, 227-236. Fisher-Giorlando, M., & Jiang, S. (2000). Race an d Disciplinary Reports: An Empirical Study of Correctional Officers. Sociological Spectrum, 20, 169194. Frey, J. H., & Fontana, A. (1991). Th e group interview in social research The Social Science Journal 28, 174-187. Grusky, O. (1959). Role Conflict in Organization: A Study of Prison Camp Officials. Administrative Science Quarterly, 3, 452-472. Hazelrigg, L.E. (1967). An Examination of the Accu racy and Relevance of Staff Perceptions of the Inmate in the Correctional Institution. The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, 58, 204-210. Hemmens, C., & Marquart, J.W. (2000). Friend or Foe? Race, Age, and Inmate Perceptions of Inmate-Staff Relations. Journal of Criminal Justice, 28 297-312. Hepburn, J.R. (1985). The Exercise of Power in Coercive Organizations: A Study of Prison Guards. Criminology, 23, 145-164. Hepburn, J.R., & Albonetti, C. (1980). Role Conf lict in Correctional Institutions: An Empirical Examination of the Treatment-Custody Dilemma Among Correctional Staff. Criminology, 17, 445-459. Hewitt, J.D., Poole, E.D., & Regoli, R.M. (1984) Self-reported and Observed Rule-breaking in Prison: A look at Disciplinary Response. Justice Quarterly, 1, 437-447.

PAGE 137

137 Hoene, Paula M. 2000. Keeping the Streets Safe: Truth in Sentencing and Public Opinion in Idaho. The Justice Professional, 12, 291-304. Irwin, J. (1970). The Felon Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Irwin, J. (2005). The Warehouse Prison: Disposal of the New Dangerous Class. Los Angeles, California: Roxbury Publishing Company. Jurik, N.C. (1985). Individual and Organizational De terminants of Correctional Officer Attitudes Toward Inmates. Criminology, 23, 523-539. Jurik, N.C., & Musheno, M.C. (1986). The Intern al Crisis of Corrections: Professionalism and the Work Environment. Justice Quarterly, 3, 457-480. Kitzinger, J. (1994). The Methodology of Focus Groups: The Importance of Interaction between Research Participants. Sociology of Health and Illness, 16, 103-121. Mayer, G.R. (2001). Antisocial Behavior: It s Causes and Prevention within Our Schools. Education and Treatment of Children, 24, 414-429. McLafferty, I. (2004). Focus Group Interv iews as a Data Collecting Strategy. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 48, 187-194. Morgan, D.L. (1996). Focus Groups. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 129-152. Morgan, D.L., & Spanish, M. T. (1984). Focus Groups: A Tool for Qualitative Research. Qualitative Sociology, 7, 253-269. Morris, N. (1995). The Contemporary Prison: 1965Present. In N. Morris and D. J. Rothman (Eds.), The Oxford History of The Prison: The Pr actice of Punishment in Western Society (pp. 202-231). New York: Oxford University Press. Marquart, J.W. (1986). Prison Guards and the Us e of Physical Coerci on as a Mechanism of Prisoner Control. Criminology, 24, 347-366. Pollock, J. (1986). Sex and Supervision: Guarding Male and Female Inmates. New York, NY: Greenwood Press. Poole, E.D, & Regoli, R.M. (1980a). Role Stress, Custody Orientation, an d Disciplinary Actions: A Study of Prison Guards. Criminology 18(2):215-226. Poole, E.D., & Regoli, R.M. (1980b). Examini ng the Impact of Professionalism on Cynicism, Role Conflict, and Work Alienation Among Prison Guards. Criminal Justice Review, 5, 57-65.

PAGE 138

138 Rasche, C.E. (2000). The Dislike of Female O ffenders among Correctional Officers: Need for Special Training. In R. Muraskin (Ed.), Its a Crime: Women and Justice (pp. 237-252). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Richards, S.C., & Ross, J.L. (2001). Introducing the New School of Convict Criminology. Social Justice, 28, 177-190. Ross, J.I., & Richards, S.C. (2002). Behind Bars: Surviving Prison Indianapolis, IN: Alpha Books Senese, J.D., (1991). Communications and In mate Management: Interactions among Jail Employees. Journal of Criminal Justice, 19, 151-163. Smithson, J. (2000). Using and Analysing Fo cus Groups: Limitations and Possibilities. International Journal of Soc ial Research Methodology, 3, 103-119. Streets, D. (1965). The Inmate Group in Custodial and Treatment Settings. American Sociological Review, 30, 40-55. Sykes, G. (1956). The Corruption of Authority and Rehabilitation. Social Forces, 34, 257-262. Sykes, G. (1958). The Society of Captives Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Tannen, D. (1990). You Just Dont Understand: Men and Women in Conversation. New York, NY: William Morrow. Terry, C.M. (2004). Managing Pris oners as Problem Populations and the Evolving Nature of Imprisonment: A Convict Perspective. Critical Criminology, 12, 43-66. Toch, H. (1978). Is a Correctional Offi cer, By Any Other Name, a Screw? Criminal Justice Review, 3, 19-35. Toch, H. (1992). Living in Prison: The Ecology of Survival Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Prog ram Bureau of Justice St atistics. (2007). Prison Statistics. Retrieved on March 22, 2007, Revised on January 21, 2007, from the World Wide Web: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/prisons.htm Useem B., & Reisig, M.D. (1999). Collective Ac tion in Prisons: Protests, Disturbances, and Riots. Criminology, 37, 735759. Warr, Deborah. (2005). It was FunBut We Dont Usually Talk about These Things: Analyzing Sociable Interaction in Focus Groups. Qualitative Inquiry, 11, 200-225.

PAGE 139

139 Weinberg, S.K. (1942). Aspects of the Prisons Social Structure. The American Journal of Sociology, 47, 717-726. Wuensch, K. (2005). Principal Components An alysis-SPSS. Retrieved on September 23, 2007, Updated on August 17, 2007, from the World Wide Web: http://core.ecu.edu/psyc/wuenschk/MV/FA/PCA.doc Zald, M.N. (1962). Power Balance and Sta ff Conflict in Correctional Institutions. Administra tive Science Quarterly, 4, 22-49.

PAGE 140

140 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Saskia Daniele Santos earned her Bachelor of Science degree in psychology and Bachelor of Arts in crim inology in 2003 from the University of Florida. Following two years working within the Florida prison system, she entered the graduate program in the Department of Criminology, Law and Society at th e University of Florida in th e fall of 2005 where she earned her Master of Arts degree in 2007.