Importance of Religion among Ex-Offenders and Their Perspectives on Turning to Religion during Incarceration

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0022322/00001

Material Information

Title: Importance of Religion among Ex-Offenders and Their Perspectives on Turning to Religion during Incarceration
Physical Description: 1 online resource (88 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Chiarizio, Jessica
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2008


Subjects / Keywords: incarceration, religion
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


Abstract: There has been much attention paid to religious programming for incarcerated individuals. This is due in part to research showing lower rates of prison infractions and recidivism rates for inmates who frequently attend religious services during their incarceration. Our study further explored results from Clear and colleagues showing that inmates turn to religious programming for both intrinsic and extrinsic reasons. Surveys and focus group interviews were used on a sample of 106 formerly incarcerated individuals from both prison and jail, to explore reasons for inmates turning to religion during incarceration and whether inmates who turn to religion for intrinsic versus extrinsic reasons differ in frequency of attendance at religious services or religious importance during incarceration. Binary logistic regression was unable to show significant differences between individuals who attended religious services frequently and individuals who felt religion was important based on an extrinsic scale, an intrinsic scale, and other predictors. Participant responses from the focus group interviews are reported that both agree and contradict the findings noted in the study by Clear and colleagues.
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 Jessica Chiarizio.
Thesis: Thesis (M.A.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local: Adviser: Lane, Jodi S.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2008
System ID: UFE0022322:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0022322/00001

Material Information

Title: Importance of Religion among Ex-Offenders and Their Perspectives on Turning to Religion during Incarceration
Physical Description: 1 online resource (88 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Chiarizio, Jessica
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2008


Subjects / Keywords: incarceration, religion
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


Abstract: There has been much attention paid to religious programming for incarcerated individuals. This is due in part to research showing lower rates of prison infractions and recidivism rates for inmates who frequently attend religious services during their incarceration. Our study further explored results from Clear and colleagues showing that inmates turn to religious programming for both intrinsic and extrinsic reasons. Surveys and focus group interviews were used on a sample of 106 formerly incarcerated individuals from both prison and jail, to explore reasons for inmates turning to religion during incarceration and whether inmates who turn to religion for intrinsic versus extrinsic reasons differ in frequency of attendance at religious services or religious importance during incarceration. Binary logistic regression was unable to show significant differences between individuals who attended religious services frequently and individuals who felt religion was important based on an extrinsic scale, an intrinsic scale, and other predictors. Participant responses from the focus group interviews are reported that both agree and contradict the findings noted in the study by Clear and colleagues.
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 Jessica Chiarizio.
Thesis: Thesis (M.A.)--University of Florida, 2008.
Local: Adviser: Lane, Jodi S.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2008
System ID: UFE0022322:00001

This item has the following downloads:

Full Text




2 2008 Jessica Lynn Chiarizio


3 To my husband Matthew, who has al ways been supportive of my goals


4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would first like to thank m y committee me mbers (Dr. Jodi Lane-Wilson, Dr. Lonn LanzaKaduce, and Dr. Ronald Akers) for their guidance and assistance. I thank my chair, Dr. Jodi Lane-Wilson, especially for her attention to deta il and high expectations which allowed me to produce work that I am proud of. I would also lik e to thank Saskia Santos, the fellow researcher on this project, for her ha rd work and friendship.


5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................4LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. ..........7ABSTRACT.....................................................................................................................................8 CHAP TER 1 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................92 LITERATURE REVIEW.......................................................................................................13Religion in Prison............................................................................................................. ......13Religion and Recidivism.........................................................................................................14Turning to Religion............................................................................................................ .....16Religion and Deprivation Theory...........................................................................................18Conclusion..............................................................................................................................213 STUDY METHODS...............................................................................................................23Study Locations......................................................................................................................23House of Hope.................................................................................................................26Salvation Army: Red Shield Lodge.................................................................................26Prisoners of Christ...........................................................................................................27Thorm Inc. Ministries...................................................................................................... 28Center of Hope................................................................................................................29Pinellas Ex-Offender Reentry Coalition (PERC)............................................................ 30Sample....................................................................................................................................30Total Sample................................................................................................................... .31Prison Participants...........................................................................................................33Jail Participants.............................................................................................................. ..33Focus Group Participants................................................................................................34Prison Non-Focus Group Participants.............................................................................35Differences between Groups...........................................................................................39Data Collection.......................................................................................................................42Focus Groups...................................................................................................................44Surveys............................................................................................................................46Instruments.................................................................................................................... .........46Focus Group Questions...................................................................................................47Survey Questions.............................................................................................................48Variables.................................................................................................................................50Dependent Variables....................................................................................................... 50Independent Variables.....................................................................................................51Analysis....................................................................................................................... ...........54


6 4 RESULTS...............................................................................................................................56Research Question 1: For What Reasons Do Inmates Turn to Religion during Incarceration?......................................................................................................................56Research Question 2: Differences in Inma tes with Intrinsic and Extrinsic Values................ 58Frequencies: Attendance at Religious Services and Religious Importance.................... 58Logistic Regression......................................................................................................... 58Focus Group Data............................................................................................................60Intrinsic Perspectives.......................................................................................................61Extrinsic Perspectives...................................................................................................... 625 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION.........................................................................................65Summary.................................................................................................................................65Relevance of Findings to the Literature.................................................................................66Policy Implications.................................................................................................................67Study Limitations and Suggesti ons for Future Research....................................................... 68APPENDIX A SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE...............................................................................................72B FOCUS GROUP QUESTIONS.............................................................................................. 84REFERENCES..............................................................................................................................85BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.........................................................................................................88


7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 3-1 Focus group locations........................................................................................................25 3-2 Sample demographics........................................................................................................ 37 4-1 Participant responses to reasons of turning to religion during incarceration .....................57 4-2 Participant responses on frequency of attendance at re ligious services ............................ 59 4-3 Participant responses on importance of religion................................................................ 59 4-4 Logistic regression analysis: Frequenc y of attendance and religious im portance............. 60


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 IMPORTANCE OF RELIGION AMONG EX-OFFENDERS AND THEIR PERSPECTIVES ON TURNING TO RELIGION DURING INCARCERATION By Jessica Lynn Chiarizio August 2008 Chair: Jodi Lane Major: Criminology, Law, and Society There has been much attention paid to religi ous programming for incarcerated individuals. This is due in part to research showing lower ra tes of prison infractions and recidivism rates for inmates who frequently attend religious services during their incarcerati on. Our study further explored results from Clear and colleagues showi ng that inmates turn to religious programming for both intrinsic and extrinsic reasons. Surv eys and focus group interviews were used on a sample of 106 formerly incarcerated individuals from both prison and jail, to explore reasons for inmates turning to religion duri ng incarceration and whether inma tes who turn to religion for intrinsic versus extrinsic reasons differ in fr equency of attendance at religious services or religious importance during inca rceration. Binary logistic regression was unable to show significant differences between individuals who attended religious serv ices frequently and individuals who felt religion was im portant based on an extrinsic scale, an intrinsic scale, and other predictors. Participant responses from the focus group interviews are reported that both agree and contradict the findings note d in the study by Clear and colleagues.


9 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The highest politica l leader in the United St ates believes that faith-based programming will reform inmates and help them reenter so ciety more successfully. In January of 2001, President Bush established his Faith-Based and Community Initiative (Bush, 2001a). Since the beginning of this initiative, there have been major expansions in faith-based programming in prison. Faith-based programming in the state of Florida is a good example. Florida was the first state to apply President Bushs Faith-Based and Community Initiative to the prison system. In 2003, former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, who cl aimed that the only way to achieve real rehabilitation of criminals and reduce recidivism is to "lead them to God", appointed Lawtey Correctional Institution (CI), a male facility housing up to 750 offenders, to be the first faithbased prison in the United States (Jablecki, 2005). Since 2003, two othe r prisons in Florida, Hillsborough CI and Wakulla CI, were converted to faith-based institutions along with seven other facilities that have de veloped Faith-Based/Self-Improvement Dorms (FB/SIDS) (Florida Department of Corrections). Together these programs allow over 3,500 inmates in Florida to participate in strictly faith-ba sed programming. The faith-based institutions and FB/SIDS are not the only prisons to offer religious programming. All of the major DOC institutions in Florida offer Chaplaincy Services including providing re ligious services, religious libraries, religious education programs, and spiritual and crisis counseling for inmates adjusting to institutional life (Florida Department of Corrections). A number of studies suggest that religious involvement redu ces levels of delinquency and also that religious participation while incarcerat ed can reduce the number of infractions received in prison and reduce recidivism upon release. Ho wever, an understudied area of the religion and prison research is why inmates choose to turn to religious programm ing while incarcerated.


10 Understanding why inmates turn to religion in prison is an impor tant step in deciphering the results showing that participati on in religious programming is e ffective in reducing recidivism and in adapting to the prison cult ure (or reducing the pains of imprisonment). A key question is whether inmates are participa ting in religious programs because they feel that religion and a closer connection to God is the way to reform or because religious programming is one of the only options for them that provides an outlet wher e they can cope with the deprivations of prison life and receive extra privileges. One study by Clear et al. (2000) measured inmate perspectives on the value of religion in prison. The themes that emerged in this article indicate that inmates turn to religion for both intrinsic reasons such as finding a new way of living and dealing with the loss of their freedom, and extrinsic reasons, su ch as gaining access to outsiders and receiving extra privileges. Religious services in prison, however, are not without controversy. A lawsuit emerged in 2003 that brought forward opinions that some reli gious programming is unconstitutional and possibly encourages inmates to participate in relig ious activities to gain access to incentives not available to non-religious inmates. In 2003, the Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU) brought a lawsuit against the Pris on Fellowship Ministries for its InnerChange Freedom Initiative operating in an Iowa prison facility since 1999. InnerChange was also operated in part by a contract w ith the Iowa Department of Corre ctions. InnerChange is a faithbased rehabilitation program (which also has prog rams in Texas, Kansas and Minnesota) that is aimed at reducing recidivism in prisoners (Wils on, 2003). In the complaint, AU alleged a statesupported religious transformation, preference fo r those inmates who were receptive to the Evangelical Christian message of InnerChange, and material advantages for participants which also gives inmates incentives to subject themselves to religious indoctrination (Lupu and Tuttle,


11 2006). The main issue in this case was whethe r the contract between the state of Iowa Department of Corrections and Innerchange Fr eedom Initiave wrongfully involved the state in the unconstitutional promotion of religion which was in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment ( Americans United for Separation of Church and State v. Prison Fellowship Ministries Memorandum Opinion by District Court, 2006). Judge Robert Pratt of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa found that InnerChange was unlawful, ordered the program to cease operation, and also ordered them to repay the $1.5 million in state funds that had already been sp ent in the program (Lupu and Tuttl e, 2006:33). However, this decision was overturned by the United States Cour t of Appeals late in 2007. An InnerChange Freedom Initiative News Release indicated that on December 3, 2007, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Judge R obert Pratts initial ruling in favor of AU to shut down InnerChange and repay $1.5 million to the state of Iowa (Americans United for Separation of Church and State, et al., v. Prison Fellowsh ip Ministries, Inc., et al., 2007). It is important to find out if inmates are turning to religion for reasons other than sincerely religious beliefs and if so, if inmates who turn to religion for intrinsic reasons differ from those who turn to religion for extrinsic reasons. Often, religion is introduced into a persons life to meet a particular need at a specific time (Johnson, 2004:332). In the attempt to shed light on some of these issues, this st udy addresses the following two research questions: For what reasons do inmates turn to religion during incarceration? Do inmates who turn to religion for intrinsi c versus extrinsic r easons differ in the frequency of attendance at relig ious services or religious im portance during incarceration? The goal of the first research que stion is to test Todd Clear and his associates conclusions about the reasons why inmates turn to religion during incarceration (2000). The goal of the second research question is to see if there are differen ces between inmates who tu rn to religion in order


12 to build or strengthen their rela tionship with God and those that turn to religion in order to receive privileges that they w ould not have otherwise. By re porting the results of focus group interviews and survey data from ex-offenders wh o were in both prison and jail, this study will contribute to the small amount of literature dedicated to this issue. Ex-offenders are a good sample to use for this study because they are uniq uely able to look back at their incarceration and determine if their reasons of turning to religion were to become closer to G od or if they were in order to survive the prison experience.


13 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Due to the fact th at there is only a small amount of literature on the meaning of religion to inmates, this literature review discusses more generally the eff ect of religion on these offenders. First, this review will discuss what part religious programming has in the prison system and studies showing the effect of religio us participation in prison on prison adjustment and recidivism. Then, the review will discuss two st udies in depth that show that inmates turn to religion for both intrinsic reasons (to find a new way of living and change their behavior) and extrinsic reasons (to deal with the deprivation they face in pris on). An understanding of these areas of literature will help clarify the differe nt reasons why inmates th at are both sincere and insincere in their religious beliefs tu rn to religion while incarcerated. Religion in Prison Clear et al. (1992b:1) suggested that religious programm i ng is easily the most common and pervasive form of correcti onal rehabilitation available to prisoners. A survey by the American Correctional Association revealed the large amount of re ligious resources accessible to inmates in the U.S. and Canada (1998). In addi tion to chapels, the survey reported that most jurisdictions allowed additional areas of the prison to be available for re ligious study or activities and most jurisdictions used technology to present supplemental religious experiences through the use of cable television, videos or satellite down links. Research shows that re ligious programs draw the most participation of the personal de velopment programs offere d in prison (Johnson et al., 1997). A national survey conduct ed by the U.S. Department of Justice showed that about 32 percent of sampled inmates participate in religio us activities such as Bi ble studies and church services (1993). Religious programming is often beneficial to bot h the inmates and the prisons. For inmates, in addition to a religious com ponent, many programs teach life skills, such as


14 reading, budgetary planning, and managing fam ily relations (Lupu and Tuttle, 2006). The Florida Department of Corrections reported that 81% of the inmates involved in the Chaplaincy program in Florida answered survey questions rating the effectiveness of the program. On a scale of 1-6, with 6 being the mo st effective, the inmates rated th e effectiveness of the program a 5.3, with the closest other program in effectiveness being Education (4.4). A statement by the Florida Department of Corrections explains why religious progra mming is also beneficial to prisons in that relig ious programming not only is an esse ntial element to control inmate idleness, it is a cost effective means in providing a safer, more manageable environment both in the prisons and in the communities to which inmates are released (Correctional Compass, 2002:12). Burnside et al. found in their study of prisoners at Kainos, a faith-based therapeutic program, that the program provided a calmer and qui eter atmosphere than other areas and that the staff-prisoner relationships were universally positive (Burnside et al., 2001). OConner and Perreyclear (2002) explained that the cost of programming is much less expensive than other effective programming, at a cost of $150-$250 for religious services per year for each inmate in a medium/maximum security prison in South Carolina. Costs in other states are comparable, with religious services in the Or egon Department of Corrections costing $230 per inmate in 2005 (OConner et al., 2006). These figures compare to $12,000-$14,000 per inmate each year for quality correctional programs that reduce recidivism (Petersilia, 1995). Religion and Recidivism The atten tion paid to religi ous programming in prison in is large part because it is a constitutional right to practice one s religion, but also due to rese arch showing that participation in faith-based activities reduces recidivism and al so reduces the number of infractions in prison. Clear et al. (1992a) studied re ligion in prison among inmates in 20 different prisons across 12 states. After administering surveys, focus-group interviews with both reli gious and non-religious


15 inmates, and interviews with chaplains, admini strators, and correctional officers, Clear et al. found a significant inverse relations hip between religiousness and in stitutional infractions. Their finding that religiosity was also related to improved prison adju stment was no longer significant when controlling for age, race, and self-esteem. Johnson conducted a study comparing the recidivism rates of prisoners in two Brazilian prisons, one wh ich focused on vocational training and prison industry, and the other was managed by faith-based religious volunteers (2002). Johnson found that although both prisons had extr emely low recidivism rates, the rate was significantly lower among prisoners from the fa ith-based prison (36% fo r the vocational prison and 16% for the faith-based prison). Aos et al (2006) reviewed six fait h-based studies that had strong methodology in their report of what works a nd what does not work in adult corrections programs and found that though some showed eviden ce of a positive program effect, five of the studies did not produce a signifi cant reduction in recidivism (Burnside et al., 2001; Johnson, 2004; OConnor et al., 1997a; Trusty and Eisenbe rg, 2003; Wilson et al., 2005a). The sixth study was of a faith-based program called Circle s of Support and Accountability (COSA) that focused on connecting sex offenders with a community support group and showed a 32% reduction in recidivism (Wilson et al., 2005b). Several researchers have found that the amount of attendance at religi ous services is an important measure affecting the number of prison infractions received and recidivism rates. In their study of inmates housed in a medium/max imum security prison in South Carolina, OConner and Perreyclear (2002) found that ther e was no difference in the tendency to have prison infractions between the re ligious inmates and the non-relig ious inmates (classified as those who attended services and those that did no t). However, the more religious sessions an inmate attended, the less likely he was to have an infraction. The researchers concluded that the


16 intensity of involvement seems to be a crucia l factor in whether or not it has an impact on offender rehabilitation (OConne r and Perreyclear, 2002:17). J ohnson et al. (1997) also found that the amount of religious at tendance made a difference in their study of inmates in four adult male prisons in New York. The researchers found that inmates classified as high participation inmates in Prison Fellowship activities, attendi ng 10 or more bible study sessions in a one-year period, were significantly less likely than those not participating, as well as those classified as medium and low participants, to be rearrested after one year (Johnson et al., 1997). When measuring the recidivism rates for 8 years after th e inmates release, Johnson et al. reported that the significant reduction in recidivism rates could be seen for up to 3 years after being released, however, the reduction was no longer significant from 4-8 years (Johnson et al., 2004). When determining the impact of inmate participation in chaplaincy programs, the Florida Department of Corrections (as of Dec 31, 2004) stated that for inmates attendi ng 10 or more sign-in chapel programs each month that were released in the fiscal year 2001-2002, the recommitment rate was 26% less than the recommitment rate for those who did not attend any chapel programs. The report also noted that the more the inmate s attended the chapel program, the smaller the recommitment rate and rate of disciplinary reports. The level of religious involvement may be a bett er predictor of recidivism than religious salience (or religious importanc e). In testing the relations hip between faith and program outcomes for a faith-based program in Nevada, researchers found that clie nts religiosity and spirituality as measured by their religious prefer ence, salience, general religiosity/spitituality, and spiritual experiences was not able to pr edict program outcomes (Roman et al; 2007). Turning to Religion As noted in the prev ious section, some litera ture on religious involvement in prison has shown that high levels of attend ance at religious services reduces recidivism. Religious salience


17 may not show an effect because religion is often important to inmates regardless of the reasons they become involved in religious ac tivities. It is possi ble that there would be more of an effect on infractions and recidivism if inmates who we re involved in religious activities for sincere reasons and insincere reasons we re separated for comparison. Dammer (2002:56) suggested that it is important to know why inmates turn to religion because it can better assist the correctional administrator in making more informed decisions (about programming) during difficult financial times. A few early researchers have briefly examined the issue of the value of religion to inmates. These scholars noted that there is a prevalence of insincere religious behavior among prison inmates (Falk, 1961; Clemmer, 1958). Cle mmer (1958:51) reported that inmates often attend religious services to achieve a break in the monotonous routine of their lives and to use the services as recreation. Others have examined the issue by indicating two types of reasons that individuals turn to religion. Involvement in re ligious activities as part of an individuals life purpose is thought to be intrinsic, while involvement for social or utilitarian purposes is extrinsic (Allport, 1960; Hoge, 1972). The degree of re ligious commitment for individuals can differ greatly but look one and the same on such a tradi tional measure of religiosity as frequency of church attendance. Allport noted the difference between the intrinsically religious person (who is more devout, honest, and caring) and the extrinsically religious person (whose religion is selfserving, immature, and narrow in scope) by sayi ng that the extrinsically motivated person uses his religion, whereas the intrinsically motiv ated lives his religion (Allport, 1956:455). Dammer (2002) also distinguished motives of tu rning to religion by separating inmates in his study on the reasons for religious involvement into those that are involved in religion for sincere purposes and those that are involv ed for insincere purposes. The researcher explained that the sincerely religious inmates are more legitimate or genuine in their religiou s beliefs and practices


18 and found religion a motivating factor for their lives while insincer e inmates were more likely to participate in religion for scheming purposes and their behavior did not reflect the rules or norms of any formal religion although they might claim to be religious inmates (Dammer, 2002:38). Religion and Deprivation Theory In order to more fully understand w hy inmate s would turn to religion during incarceration for reasons other than that they are genuinely religious, it is im portant to briefly review an important theory seen in corrections literature deprivation theory. Deprivation theory came about because of Clemmers work on inmate subcultures and his term prisonization which refers to the adoption of the folkways, mores, customs, and general culture of the inmate subculture (Clemmer, 1940). The deprivation model, argues that the prison setting promotes the process of prisonization through the adjustment to the pains of imprisonment (Sykes, 1958; Sykes and Messinger, 1960) experienced by inmates in the prison system, including the deprivation of liberty, goods and services, autonomy, security, a nd heterosexual relationships (Sykes, 1958). These deprivations then account for the form ation of prison counter cultures which become oppositional to staff and foster aggression (Pat erline and Petersen, 1999; Jiang and FisherGiorlando, 2002). Some researcher s criticize the deprivation m odel because not every inmate becomes prisonized and they generally advocat e the importation model which suggests that a persons experiences prior to incar ceration, especially those that i nvolve the adoption of criminal values and personal characteristics of the inmates affect how much they will assimilate into the inmate subculture (Thomas and Petersen, 1977; Irwin and Cressey 1962; Irwin, 1970). Two articles (derived from the same data) th at are helpful in showing the meaning of religion from the point of view of the inmate find that some inmates turn to religion at least partly because of prison depriva tion (Dammer, 2002; Clear et al., 2000). In one article, Dammer


19 pointed out that the inmates re sponses about the reasons they tu rned to religion have links to Sykes explanation of five types of depriva tion in prisons, including deprivation of liberty, deprivation of goods and services, deprivation of autonomy, depriva tion of security, and deprivation of heterosexual re lationships. Clear et al. reli ed on both the deprivation and importation perspectives and assume d that religion in the prison is affected by the prison culture, which results from the deprivations of the prison and imported social values (importation theory). Clear and Sumter (2002) added that differences in the way each prison deprives the inmate of what he wants will change the type of religious response that happens in that prison. For example, the researchers pointed out that in prisons with younger, less experienced prisoners, religious commitment seems to reduce depression and provide the support needed to counteract the strains of a hostile environment. In other prisons where there are older inmates that are more experienced, religious programs tend to provide th e type of support men need to stay out of trouble. Looking more at how Dammer (2002) and Clear et al. (2000) related their findings to the types of prison deprivation experienced in pris on described by Sykes (1958) will allow a fuller understanding of why inmates turn to religion du ring incarceration, because they are two of the few studies that do this. The first type of depr ivation Sykes referred to is the deprivation of liberty, or the immediate loss of the inmates freedom of movement a nd separation from family, relatives, and friends (1958). Dammers research i ndicated that inmates are most likely to occupy themselves with religion not long after being in carcerated (2002:53), supposedly because of the immediate deprivation of liberty and the serious nature of their cu rrent condition in life. Clear et al. (2000) related that faith is significant to inmates because it provides a type of freedom within the prison. The res earchers explained that the freedom inmates refer to comes by means of


20 a personal sense of peace, and that as an extr insic motive, the desire for freedom is poorly served by religious practice (Clear et al., 2000:6 3). However, the fact that involvement in religious activities allows inmates to build re lationships with other in mates and possibly with their families is attractive to both inmates that are sincere in their religious participation and those that are not. The second type of deprivat ion described by Sykes is the deprivation of goods and services, including a variety of food, clothes, furniture and extra amenities such as cigarettes and liquor (1958). Dammer argued that with involv ement in religious activities, the deprivation of goods and services is lessened because inmates who attend receive be nefits, such as food, coffee, and musical instruments (2002). This was apparent in his study of inmates because attendance was largest when food was provided. Clear et al. (2000) added that in each of the prisons in their sample material advantages were available for the inmates that participated in religious activities, including ex tra phone calls and extra postage for letters. Another reason that inmates turn to religion, and the third type of deprivation desc ribed by Sykes, is heterosexual relationships (Sykes, 1958). Part icipating in religious activities allowed the inmates in Dammer and Clear et al.s study to meet and interact with women volunt eers (Dammer, 2002; Clear et al, 2000). Clear et al. note that having an outsider to communicat e with can reduce the feeling within prisoners that society has forgotten them. The next form of deprivation felt by inmates is that of autonomy. In prison, the heavy restric tion on inmates ability to make simple choices often strips away their self-determination (Syke s, 1958). Turning to religion may link to the deprivation of autonomy because inmates obtai n psychological relief from religion in prison. Religion allows the inmates to have meaning in their lives and improve their self-esteem (Dammer, 2002:54). Clear et al. said that some inmates reported a change in their sense of personal power that enables them to better handle the pressures of life in prison with the help of


21 religion (Clear et al., 2000). Th e last form of deprivation is that of security, where Sykes explains that every inmate is aware that eventually he must be prepared to fight for the safety of his person and his possessions (S ykes, 1958:424). Dammer (2002) reported that in his study, both formal and informal interviews with in mates indicated that protection was the most important reason that insincere inmates participated in religious activities. Inmates who are not sincere about their religious beli efs may turn to religion in order to belong to a group, which would help protect them against physical altercations with other inmates. Dammer found also that Muslim inmates practiced religion for protection more so than prisoners of other denominations (reported by both Muslim and other inmates). In addition, offenders convicted of sex offenses, homosexuals, and inmates with HIV (AIDS) typically turned to religion more for protection (Dammer, 2002). Clear et al. (2000) add that protecti on was especially important for prisoners who are physically weak or effeminate. Conclusion In 1961, Falk (pg 161) noted that research has be gan to call into question old beliefs that religion can only have an effect on the reductio n of crim e and delinquency if the criminal has accepted the church and its teachings as an integr ated part of his whol e personality. With studies showing that a high leve l of religious involvement in prison can reduce recidivism, in order to get more telling results, it may beco me important to distinguish between inmates who turn to religion for sincere purpos es and those that turn to religion to deal with their loss of freedom, security, and other deprivations. The pur pose of this review wa s to better understand the place of religion in the lives of inmates a nd to understand that there are many reasons for which inmates turn to religion other reasons th an that they are highl y religious. This study attempts to answer the following research questio ns based on the findings re presented in Clear et al. (2000):


22 For what reasons do inmates turn to religion during incarceration? Do inmates who turn to religion for intrinsi c versus extrinsic r easons differ in the frequency of attendance at relig ious services or religious im portance during incarceration?


23 CHAPTER 3 STUDY METHODS This section will dis cuss the methodology used fo r this study. First, a description of each location where the sample came from will be discussed. Then, the target sample will be explained including a description of the dem ographics for each group within the sample. Following, details of the data collection methods will be given which will include a description of the two measures used, including a survey que stionnaire and focus group interview questions. Study Locations The participants for this st udy were recruited by two m eans. First, the researchers searched via the Internet to find half-way houses or transitional homes for ex-offenders located in Florida within 3 hours driving distance from the University of Florida in Gainesville. This perimeter was set for the convenience of data co llection. Half-way houses were used because it allowed the researchers to connect with individuals who generally have been released from incarceration for only a short amount of time, ther efore making them better able to recall their experiences during incarceration. The researchers searched for homes and programs that had varying levels of faith-based activities from no religious requirement to daily bible study activities. The researchers wanted to gather samples from homes with varying degrees of religious activities in order to gain insight from participants who were heavily involved in religious activities and those w ho were not. After locating the programs, one of the researchers contacted each program and asked to speak with the director. They then explained to each director that they were gradua te students at the University of Florida who were conducting a two-part study that hoped to measure ex-offende r perceptions of informal social control experienced while incarcerated a nd also the importance of religion in the lives of ex-offenders before, during, and after incarcer ation including why they turn ed to religion during their


24 incarceration.1 Some of the directors requested that the survey and consent forms be faxed to them before they would agree to participate. The directors were the main contact for each program and after they approved th e study, they arranged a time for the researcher to administer the survey and conduct the interviews. After one experience of misco mmunication between the researchers and a program director2, the researchers informed the directors on the phone that having them absent from the room when the interview took place was necessary and all gave their consent to this method. Usually, the interviews occurred at a time where all of the program clients were there for a require d Bible study or another meeting. At one of the homes, the interview took place during the middle of the day and the clients were permitted to break from their work to participate if they chose to. At each location, the researcher s asked the director if he/she knew of any other programs to contact a nd in two cases, the researchers were given the contact information of the director of another program. The data for this study were gathered at six locations in Florida (Table 3-1). Each of the faith-based programs re quired varying levels of commitment to religious or sp iritual activities from their participants. Although it was the intention of the researchers to collect an equal representation of data from both faith-based and non-faith-based programs, only the county run re-e ntry program (PERC) can be considered nonfaith-based. To show the difference in each program where the sample was gathered, a description of each will follow including who th e program accepts, what is expected of each individual participating, and what the program provides for each individual. 1 Two graduate student researchers conducted this study. This paper will focus only on the religious component of the study. In the methodology section, the word research ers will be used to note that there were two people conducting the study. Later, researcher will be used to refer to the researcher who will analyze the data. 2 At the first program where data were collected, the rese archer assumed that it would be acceptable to the director that the director be absent from the room when the interview was taking place. Unfortunately, the director became upset at the researcher because he felt that the ex-offend ers would not hide any information from him and did not feel that he should be kept in the dark. With assurance that this was for the benefit of anonymity for the exoffenders participating in the project, this director agreed to stay out of the room but then refused to set up future meetings.


25Table 3-1. Focus Group Locations Focus Group Religious Requirement City Number of Participants Age Racial Distribution (All Male) Range Black White Other 1. House of Hope Active pa rticipation in church; Bible study and spiritual counseling Gainesville 4 3246 3 1 2. Salvation Army: Red Shield Lodge Group Bible study and prayer sessions Jacksonville 9 3856 7 2 3. Prisoners of Christ Program heavily urges attendance at worship service Jacksonville 12 3062 4 7 1 4. Prisoners of Christ Program heavily urges attendance at worship service Jacksonville 5 38 67 4 1 5. Salvation Army: Red Shield Lodge* Group Bible study and prayer sessions Jacksonville 7 31-59 6 1 6. Prisoners of Christ Program heavily urges attendance at worship service Jacksonville 6 30-58 3 3 7. THORM Inc. Ministries Christian 12 Step and Bible study Jacksonville 5 31-45 4 1 8. Center of Hope Church attendance 3 times per week, complete discipleship workbooks, and religious classes daily Clearwater 3 45-57 3 9. Pinellas Ex-Offender Reentry Coalition* No religious requirement Clearwater 49 18-49 20 26 3 10. Prisoners of Christ Group Bible study and prayer sessions Jacksonville 7 38-46 2 5 *Groups participated in survey only. Group 5 did not participate in a focus group becau se they reported being tired and would n ot participate without compensation. Group 9 did not pa rticipate in a focus group because there was no private ar ea to conduct the in terview. All ot her groups participated in both focus group interviews and surveys.


26 House of Hope The first site where data were collected was the House of Hope, a halfway house located in Gainesville, Florida. The house is located in a residential neighbor hood on the east side of Gainesville, and is run by a reform ed ex-offe nder and his wife (who runs a halfway house for women nearby), who are heavily involved in the re ligious community in the area. The House of Hope is a volunteer driven, privately funded, faith-based support program for Christians recently released from incarcerati on. The individuals participating in this program were referred by a prison chaplain and submitted an application th at was screened for various things such as their behavior during incarcera tion, Chapel and Bible study atte ndance, and participation in treatment and educational programs. Sex offenders or individuals who are unable to work are rejected from participating in th is program. Once the clients are accepted into the program, they must commit to stay for a minimum of 3-6 m onths. During this time, they are required to actively participate in church, Bible study and spiritual couns eling sessions, perform community service, pay rent and perform chores at the house and stay alcohol and drug free. They must also obtain and continue gainful employment. The program assists with this by maintaining relationships with businesses in the community that are willing to hire program participants. The only restriction on employment is that it can not be on Sundays or evenings, to ensure that they can participate in programs at the house. Salvation Army: Red Shield Lodge The researchers conducted three separate groups (Groups 2, 5, and 10) to collect data at the Red Shield Lodge run by the Salvation Army in Jacksonville, Florid a. This program is located in downtown Jacksonville in a fairly larg e facility with a cafeteria and multiple meeting rooms. The Red Shield Lodge is a faith-based substance abuse program that offers substance abuse treatment and counseling along with life skills a nd bible study groups. Like the House of


27 Hope, participants enter the program straight from incarceration or within the first five days of their release by referral from with in the prison. Also like the H ouse of Hope, the Red Shield Lodge denies access to sex offenders. Participants stay in the program for up to one year and are required to come to group bible study/prayer sessions and to find a job. The program does help find job placement simply by calling local business on behalf of the participant. According to the program director, most of the participants find job employment at local construction companies. Prisoners of Christ Another loc ation where multiple groups were surveyed and interviewed for data was with the Prisoners of Christ program in Jacksonville, Florida. Three groups were conducted with the program (Groups 3, 4 and 6), one which occurred at a local church where the participants have their Alcoholics Anonymous group, and two times at the program office in the kitchen. This program is different from the other programs mentioned because it has an office where the program staff (9 people including part-time workers) work and where program meetings take place which is separate from housing for the partic ipants. According to the program director, the Prisoners of Christ program is well known thr oughout the prisons near Jacksonville and inmates find out about the program through the prison Chapla ins and classification o fficers. Participants apply for the program by filling out a short ap plication. The program accepts both faith and nonfaith male participants but screens inmates to exclude sexual predators (they do accept sex offenders) because of a childcare facility nearby the program, and inmates who take medications for clinical depression, acute anxi ety, and bipolar diso rder because the program would be unable to meet the needs of those individuals. The program staff picks up the released ex-offenders from prison and provides them with clothing, food, and housing, and assists them with registration at the Sheriffs office, getting Flor ida identification, and re porting to their probation


28 officers. The participants are first moved into transitional housing (r esidential housing with 5 men in each unit) for a period of 10 weeks, with no payment required. Then, the participants have the option of living in the programs furnished apartments (called Second Change Apartments) for $75 per week for up to 8 months where the program will continue assisting the participants with medical care and transportation or leaving the program to go out on their own. The program requires its particip ants to attend the programs Alcohol Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous meetings along with at least 1 street mee ting (AA/NA meetings offered within the community) per week. The participants are heav ily urged to attend wors hip services of their choice, but this is not an offici al requirement to stay in the program. Also, the program assists the participants with employment through its relationships with busin ess in the community. Thorm Inc. Ministries One group of participants were surveyed and interviewed at Thorm Inc. Ministries in Jacksonville, Florida. Like the House of Hope this program is a ha lfway house located in a residential neighborhood and run by a husband and wife. The particip ants are accepted into the house after filling out an applica tion and interviewing w ith the program director. The director looks at each participants volunt ary participation in classes in prison, incarceration history, substance abuse history, and recommendations from the classification officer or chaplain within the prison. The program directors do not accept pa rticipants who they f eel are not ready for reentry into the community. This is a subjec tive decision based on the offenders answers to interview questions. When accepted into Thorm Inc. Ministries, the participants are allowed to stay in the house for up to 12 months. During this period, the program offers Pastoral Care and refers the participants to substance abuse treatment at an outside organization called River Region. The participants are required to attend a Christian Twelve Step program and bible study classes called Spiritual Enrichment (open to all religions). They are also required to obtain


29 employment within two weeks of starting the program. One pr ogram director stated that employment is very easy to fi nd in Jacksonville and if they do not have a job within that time period, they usually are not looki ng and have begun other drug/alc ohol/sexual habits Like the program director at the Red Shie ld Lodge, she noted that getting work at construction sites is easy employment opportunity for the participants. If the participants are unable to obtain employment because they are disabled or suffer from HIV, the program assists them by getting them to legal services that help them with social securi ty application. Partic ipants are referred to mental health treatment and occasionally are moved to an adult living facility if the program is unable to meet their needs. Center of Hope Group 8 was conducted at the Center of Hope in Clearwater, Florida. Unlike some of the other programs, participants are accepted into the program after their release from incarceration and even if they have not been incarcerated. Ac cording to the Pastor of the program, participants are referred from a local detoxi fication center, church es, the Pasco Pinellas County Jail, prisons around the state, and by word of mouth. A few restrictions limit certain people from participating in the program. The Center of H ope does not accept individuals who have violent charges, sexual predators, or homosexuals. Th e program asks the participants for a 6 month commitment, but suggests that they stay for 1 year to receive all that the program has to offer. During the program, the participants are required to attend church 3 times per week, complete 3 discipleship workbooks, attend classes every night, and complete the STARS employment program. The individuals are not allowed to obtain employment for a minimum of 1 month, and afterward, may only work hours that allow full partic ipation in the program. The Center of Hope does not offer substance abuse treatment or counseling, but instead believes that when an individual focuses on his relationship with Christ, his addictions will fall away.


30 Pinellas Ex-Offender Reentry Coalition (PERC) A large portion of the sample (46%) particip ated in the Pin ellas Ex-Offender Reentry Coalition (PERC). This program in Pinellas County, Florida was initiated in April 1988 based on a Needs at Release Survey done by the Pine llas County Jail. The individuals enter the program by referral from the Pine llas County Jail, or are court recommended or court ordered. Many of the participants in this program were involved in Project New Attitudes, a life skills program for inmates in the Pinellas County Jail. PERC links ex-offenders from the Department of Corrections and the Pinellas County Jail to multiple services in the community. The requirements for PERC clients ar e individually tailored due to the program often being court ordered (for example, as a condition of the offe nders probation). PERC clients are required to attend monthly meetings for 1 year, but the program will continue to offer services such as counseling, classes, case management, and job placemen t, as long as the client continues to come to the meetings. There is not a mandatory religious component to the PERC program. According to the director of the program, there are faith-based partners for PERC who offer assistance under the umbrella of case management. Sample The intended target sam ple population was male s living in halfway or transitional houses that had been released from a state-run correctiona l institution within the past 5 years. The time limit of 5 years was set to ensure that the ex-offenders perceptions of their time during incarceration were still fairly accurate. The res earchers also hoped to make contact with and collect data from former halfwa y house or program residents who ha d been released within the 5 year time limit. It was hoped that contact with the former residents thro ugh the program director and set up a time for up to 12 former program c lients to meet to administer the focus group interview and survey. During the course of data collection, the sa mple was adjusted due to the


31 limited availability of programs in Gainesvill e, Florida and the su rrounding areas offering transitional housing or programs for ex-offenders re leased from the Department of Corrections. Also, reaching former halfway house residents or program clients was difficult because many of them did not update their contact info rmation with the program directors.3 The sample gathered consisted of two groups of partic ipants, those who had served tim e in a state or federal prison and those who had been in a county jail. The samp le is split into several groups to explain their demographic characteristics and for comparison pur poses (Table 3-2). First the total sample will be described, including the individuals who ha d been incarcerated in both prison and jail. Next, the prison participants who had been incarcerated by the Departme nt of Corrections will be discussed, followed by the jail participants who only served time in the Pinellas County Jail, in Tampa, Florida. A la rge portion of the prison participan t sample participated in focus group interviews. This sample will be called f ocus group participants. Their demographics will be discussed, ending with a description of the prison participants who were not involved in the focus group interviews. None of the partic ipants who were incarcerated in jail only participated in the focus group inte rviews, but all of them complete d the survey. This is because the director of the PERC program (where all of the jail participants came from) was unable to secure the researchers a private room to conduct the focus group interviews. Total Sample The entire sam ple included 106 male ex-offenders from either prison or jail (Table 3-2). The sample ranged in age from 18 to 67, with an average age of 38 years. There was a similar number of white and black participants, with 49 (47%) and 52 (50%) respectively, and four 3 The director of the Reentry Coalition in Ocala, Florida sent an email to all the former offender contacts he had asking for volunteers to participate in the study. Only 1 individual responded and he had been released from prison more than 5 years prior.


32 individuals coded as other (His panic and Asian). The number of years of education gained by the sample ranged from 2 to 16 (2nd grade to a Bachelors degree), with an average of 11.7 years. The majority of the group, 57 out of 103 (3 missing) graduated High School or obtained a General Equivalency Diploma (GED). There was wide variation in how long since the participants had been released fr om prison or jail, ranging from 1 day to 17 years (204 months). The average amount of time since being releas ed was almost 12 months. However, when excluding the 6 participants that had been released from prison or jail more than 5 years before the study, the average was a much lower 5.8 months The average length of incarceration for all the participants was 61 months, or just over 5 years, with a minimum of 3 months and a maximum of 336 months (28 years). All but 7 of the participants were incarcerated in Florida exclusively, and only one particip ant did not list Florida as a state in which he had been incarcerated. The sample was broken down in to 25% drug offenders (26 individuals), 31% property offenders (32 individuals ), 25% violent offenders (26 i ndividuals), 12% violators of probation or parole (13 individuals ), and 8% other (8 individual s) including traffic offenses (driving with a suspended license, driving under the influence, and leav ing the scene of an accident with injury), fleeing or eluding a police o fficer, molestation, arson, fa ilure to appear at a court date, and gun possession. Pa rticipants self-reporting indi cated that the sample was comprised of 24% Christians (21 individuals), 28 % Protestants (25 indivi duals with Protestant including Baptist, Meth odist, Pentecostal and 7th Day Adventist), 11% Catholics (10 individuals), 3% Islamics (3 individuals), 24% indicating no religious denomination (21 individuals), and 10% indicati ng other denominations (9 individuals including those reporting Agnostic, Open, and other but not indi cating a specific denomination).


33 Prison Participants Of the 106 total participants, 70 had been incarcerated in stat e or federal prison (Table 32). The age of the prison part icipants ranged from 19 to 67, averaging higher than the total group (38 years old) at 43 years old. The group was comp rised of 29 white individuals (41%), 38 black individuals (54%), and 3 Hispan ics (4%). This group is com pos ed of slightly more black participants than the total group. Exactly like the tota l sample, the years of education gained from prison participants ranged from 2 to 16 a nd averaged 11.7 years (High School diploma or GED). At the time of the study, the average amount of time sinc e the prison participants had been released from prison was almost 15 months. The time since their release ranged from 1 day to 204 months (17 years) like the total sample, but the prison participants had been out of prison 3 months longer on average. The range of time the prison participan ts had been incarcerated was from 5 months to 336 months (28 years) and averaged 87 months (7.25 years). The prison sample spent over 2 more years incarcerated than the total sample. Most of the prison participants were incarcerated only in Florida, with 4 having been incarcer ated in one other state and 2 having been incarcerated in two additiona l states. One participant had been incarcerated only in West Virginia. The prison participants consisted of 20% drug offe nders (14 individuals), 38% property offenders (26 individu als), 28% violent offenders (19 individuals), 9% violators of probation or parole (6 individuals ), and 6% other offenders (4 individuals). By self-report, the sample consisted of 22% Christians (14 indivi duals), 36% Protestants (23 individuals), 8% Catholics (5 individual s), 5% Islamic (3 Individuals), 20% having no religious denomination (13 individuals), and 9% other in cluding those that did not sp ecify (6 individuals). Jail Participants Of the total sam ple, 36 of th e participants had been incarcerated in the Pinellas County Jail in Clearwater, Florida and had no prison expe rience (Table 3-2). All individuals in the jail


34 sample were incarcerated at that facility only. Because of the differen ce between jail and prison, this group differed in many respects from the prison group. This groups age ranged from 18 to 46 years old, with an average of 28 years, 10 years younger on aver age than the prison participants. The only similarity between the prison and jail participan ts was the amount of education obtained. The amount of education earned ranged from 7 years to 16 years (Bachelors degree) in the jail participants but each group averaged 11.7 years of ed ucation, or close to a High School Diploma or GED. On average, the jail participants had been re leased from jail just over 5 months prior to their involvement in the study, with a range of 2 w eeks to 3 years. The amount of time they spent incarcerated spanned from 3 months to 10 months and averaged about 5.8 months in jail. There were more white partic ipants and less black part icipants in the jail group than in the prison group. The jail particip ants consisted of 20 white individuals (57.1%), 14 black individuals (40%), and 1 Asian (2.9%). The jail sample included 33% drug offenders (12 individuals), 17% property offe nders (6 individuals), 19 % viol ent offenders and violators of probation or parole (7 individuals each), and 11% other offenders (4 individuals). The sample is comprised of 28% Christians (7 individuals), 8% Protestants (2 individuals), 20% Catholics (5 individuals), 32% with no denomination (8 individua ls), and 12% reporting othe r (3 individuals). Focus Group Participants Focus group interviews were conducted with 50 (71%) of the 70 prison participants (Table 3-2). This groups age ra nged from 30 to 67, with an aver age of 45 years old. The group consisted of 22 white participants (44%), 26 black participants (52%), and 2 Hispanic individuals (4%). The focus group participants gained an averaged of about 11.5 years of education (between 11th grade and a High School Diploma or GED), w ith a range of 2 years to 16 years. The participants had been released from prison ju st over 5 months on average, with a range from 1 day to 5 years since being released. The group spent an average of 95 m onths (almost 8 years)


35 incarcerated, spanning from as little as 5 months to as much as 28 years. Three of the focus group participants had been incarc erated in one other state than Florida, and 1 participant was incarcerated only in West Virginia. The remaini ng participants served time only in the Florida Department of Corrections. Focus group individu als were convicted of 16% drug offenders (8 individuals), 39% propert y offenders (19 individuals), 29% vi olent offenders (14 individuals), and 8% violators of probation or parole and other offenders (4 individuals each). This group was made up of 17% Christians (8 individua ls), 43% Protestants (20 individua ls), 6% Catholics and Islamic (3 individuals each), 19% with no denominati on (9 individuals), and 9% stating other denominations (4 individuals). Prison Non-Focus Group Participants For two reasons, a portion of the prison partic ipants did not participate in the focus group interviews (N=20) (Table 3-2). The first reason is that the participants in group 5 (comprised of all prison participants) from the Salvation Army Red Shield Lodge (Table 3-1) chose not to participate in the focus group interviews because th ey were tired and did not want to participate without compensation. The other prison partic ipants who were not involved in focus group interviews were from Group 9 (PERC comprised of both jail and prison participants) where the opportunity to interview the group was not availabl e because the director of the program was not able to secure a private room in the court house where the data colle ction took place. These participants were similar to the focus group part icipants in race, educational obtainment, and offense type, and they differed in age and months since being released prio r to the study and the length of time incarcerated. Pris on participants who did not part icipate in focus group interviews had a similar percentage of each race/ethnicity as the focus group participants. This group had 7 white individuals (35%), 12 black individuals (60%), and 1 Hisp anic (2%). They also had a


36 similar average, 12.3 years, of educational obtainm ent as the total and prison participants, but the minimum years gained was much higher at 11 ye ars (versus 2 years in the total and prison groups). Prison participants who were not involved in the focus groups were similarly convicted of offenses as the focus group participants with the exclusion of two categories. Like the focus group participants, there were 35% property offende rs (7 individuals), 25% violent offenders (5 individuals), and 10% viol ators of probation or parole. Unlike the focus group participants, there were almost twice as many drug offenders (30% or 6 individuals) and zero offenders convicted of other offenses (such as driving under the influe nce, leaving the scene of an accident, failure to appear, etc.). The age range of prison participan ts that did not take part in the focus groups was 19 to 59, with an average age of 37. On averag e, this group was 8 years younger than the prison participants who were involved in the focus group interviews. Non-focus group participants differed from the prison group part icipants in the amount of time since the individuals had been released from prison prior to the study. Th e non-focus group prison participants had been released over 3 years (38 months) on average, whereas the focus group prison participants had been released just 5 months on average. Also, the prison participants who did not participate in the focus groups experienced on average 29 m onths less time incarcerated than the prison participants who did participate. The groups av erage time incarcerated was 66 months (5 and a half years), very similar to the average for all of the participants in the study (61 months). By self-report, the 20 individuals were made up of 35% Christians (6 individuals), 18% Protestants (3 individuals), 12% Catholics (2 individuals), 24% with no denomination (4 individuals), and 12% with other denominations (2 individuals).


37Table 3-2. Sample Demographics All Participants Prison Participants Jail Participants* Total N=106 Total N=70 Focus Group N=50 Non-Focus Group N=20 Total N=36 % % % % % Age Mean 37.9 42.8 45.0 37.4 28.4 Range 48-67 19-67 30-67 19-59 18-46 Total Responses 103 97.26998.64998 2010036100 Missing Responses 3 2.811.412 00 00 Race White 49 46.72941.42244 7352057.1 Black 52 49.53854.32652 12601440 Other 4 3.934.324 15 12.9 Total Responses 105 99.17010050100 201003597.2 Missing Responses 1 0.90000 00 12.8 Years Education Mean 11.7 11.7 11.5 12.3 11.7 Range 2-16 2-16 2-16 11-16 7-16 Total Responses 103 97.26998.64998 201003494.4 Missing Responses 3 2.811.412 00 25.6 Months Since Release Mean 11.7 14.7 5.3 38.2 5.4 Range 0-204 0-204 0-60 0-204 .5-36 Total Responses 103 97.27010050100 201003391.7 Missing Responses 3 2.80000 00 38.3 *Along with the non-focus group prison partic ipants, the jail part icipants did not participate in focus group interviews.


38 Table 3-2 Continued. All Participants Prison Participants Jail Participants* Total N=106 Total N=70 Focus Group N=50 Non-Focus Group N=20 Total N=36 % % % % % Months Incarcerated Mean 61 87.1 95.4 66.2 5.8 Range 3-336 5-336 5-336 12-204 3-10 Total Responses 10397.27010050 100201003391.7 Missing Responses 32.8000 00038.3 State of Incarceration Florida Only 9993.46998.646 92178536100 Florida + 1 Other State 43.845.73 61500 Florida + 2 Other States 21.922.90 021000 Only Another State 10.911.41 20000 Total Responses 1061007010050 1002010036100 Missing Responses 00000 00000 Most Serious Offense Drug 2624.81420.38 16.36301233.3 Property 3230.52637.719 38.8735616.7 Violent 2624.81927.514 28.6525719.4 Violator of Probation 1312.468.74 8.2210719.4 Other 87.645.84 8.200411.1 Total Responses 10599.16998.649 982010036100 Missing Responses 1.911.41 20000 *Along with the non-focus group prison partic ipants, the jail part icipants did not participate in focus group interviews.


39 Differences between Groups When com paring all of the groups in the sa mple, there are a few demographic variables that are similar among all groups, but in most cases the sub-samples differ from each other. All groups had very similar educational attainment with the range among all groups at 11.5 to 12.3 years of education. The average age was also similar between th e groups with the exception of the jail participants, who were 10 years younge r than total group, 15 years younger than the prison group, 17 years younger than the focus group and 9 years younger than the non focus group prison participants. There was only a ma ximum difference of 6 years between all groups except the jail participants. As far as the state or states for which the offenders had served their sentences, all of the groups had at least 85 perc ent of participants that were incarcerated in Florida only. There are some differences in the racial compositions of the groups. The total participants, prison participants, and focus group pa rticipants were simila r with a range of 41-47 percent white individuals and 5054 percent black indivi duals. However, the jail participants consisted of a higher percentage of white indi viduals (57%) and a lowe r percentage of black individuals (40%) and the non focus group prison participants had the opposite, a lower percentage of white individuals (35%) and a higher percentage of black individuals (60%). The percentage of other (Asian and Hispanic) particip ants in all of the groups was 3-5 percent. The amount of time since each group had been released from prison differed among all groups except for the jail and focus group participants. The total sample had been released 11.7 months on average, the prison group had been released for 14.7 months, the jail and focus group participants had been released 5.4 and 5.3 months on averag e respectively, and the non focus group prison participants had been released 38.2 months on average, longer than all of the other groups. The amount of time the participants spent incarcerat ed differed between each group. In order of the


40 amount of time incarcerated, the focus group par ticipants had been imprisoned for the longest (95 months), then the group prison particip ants (87 months), the non focus group prison participants (66) months, the total participan t group (61 months), and finally a much lower amount of time for the jail particip ants (almost 6 months). There are also some differences in the percentage of individuals convict ed of drug, property, violent, viol ation of probation (or parole), and other offenses between the groups. The am ount of drug offenders in the groups ranged from around 16 percent to 33 percent in the focus group participants and jail participants respectively. Each of the groups were similar in the amount of participants with pr operty offenses, with a range of 31-39 percent among all groups, excep t the jail group which only had about 17% property offenders. Again, the ja il group differed from the rest in violent offenses, with 19 percent compared to the other groups which had about 25-29 percent. E xpectedly, the jail group had the largest group of offenders (19%) convicted of a violation of prob ation or parole, while the other groups ranged from 8-12 percent. The proportion of participan ts convicted of other offenses (DUI, traffic, resisting an officer, etc.) was also the hi ghest at 11 percent. On the composition of different religious denominations, the total, prison, and jail participants were similar in the amount of self-reported Christia ns in each group (between 22% and 28%) while there were fewer Christian focus group partic ipants (17%) and more non focus group prison participants (35%). There is a wide range in the proportion of Protestant participants in each group, including 8% of jail participants, 18% of non focus group prison participants, 28% of the total participants, 36% of pris on participants, and 43% of focu s group participants. All groups except the jail participants, cons isting of 20% participants, we re similar in the amount of Catholic individuals in the group, ranging from 6-12 percent. Isla mic participants were a small percentage of only the total group and the prison particip ant group (3 and 5 per cent respectively).


41 The groups ranged from 19-24 percent of indi viduals recording no religious denomination, except the jail participants wher e 32 percent recorded no religious denomination. Finally, the amount of participants in all of the groups reporting other denominations ranged from 9-12 percent. The differences discussed above among the sub-samples are limitations for the study. Overall, the jail group is much younger and has a larger percentage of white individuals than the other groups. These differences may be qua litative differences in individuals who are incarcerated in jail versus those incarcerated in prison. Younger in dividuals may feel that they still have plenty of time to turn their lives around and not feel as inclined to turn to religion, possibly as a last resort, in or der to change their behavior. Another difference among the groups that may affect the study result s is that the focus group prison participants (N=70) had been incarcerated for over 95 months on average where the jail participants had been incarcerated only 5.8 months on average. This difference is largely a result of the qualitati ve differences between jail and prison. The individuals in jail are younger and committed less serious offenses. The researcher expects different responses to questio ns regarding the reasons of turning to religion among these two groups that may be the result of these differences. For instance, it seems that if an individual is incarcerated for 95 months (about 8 years), there would be much more of a reason to become involved with re ligion for both extrinsi c and intrinsic reasons There is a much longer amount of time for individuals to reflect on their lives and what has lead them to prison as well as a longer amount of time to deal with bore dom and the loss of privileges. It seems that jail inmates, who are incarcerated less than 6 months and on less serious offenses, may not feel the need to turn to a higher power in order to change their behavior (or may not feel that they need to change their behavior at all) or turn to religious servic es for privileges that they can


42 manage without for that amount of time. Also, the individuals that had been incarcerated in jail and the prison participants that participated in the focus group interviews had been released for an average of 5.4 and 5.3 months respectively. The twenty pris on participates that did not participate in the focus group interviews had been released from prison for 38.2 months on average. Since the researchers were not able to interview these individuals, the study lost the opportunity to examine religion in the lives of individuals who ha ve been back in society for longer and the qualitative benefits of being invo lved in religion (where it would have been applicable). Data Collection In this study, a com bination of focus group in terviews and surveys were used to collect data. The focus group interviews help the research ers gather individual perspectives on religious participation during incarceration and to compare this samples perspectives with the Clear et al. (2000) study which informed the design of the ques tions used in this study.. The survey allows the researchers to describe th e participants demographic char acteristics incl uding age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, time si nce being released from prison, le ngth of time in prison, state(s) of incarceration, level of security of incarceration facility, length of time residing in a halfway house (if applicable), convicted offe nses, and religious denomination. A snowball sampling method was used to co ntact directors of halfway houses and transitional programs starting with a search on the Internet for nearby programs within three hours driving distance from Gainesville. Because th is population is hard to reach, the snowball sampling method was the most efficient and effectiv e way to obtain data for this study. As noted above, the directors were the main contact for each program and after they approved the study, they arranged a time for the resear cher to conduct the interviews and administer the survey. Upon arriving at the halfway house, transitional home, or program, the researchers introduced


43 themselves to the director and he or she gather ed the ex-offenders in a room that was quiet or separate where the group would have some privacy.4 Before the focus group was conducted, the researchers introduced themselves to the particip ants and handed a large envelope and a pen to each person. It contained the survey and two consent forms, one of which was in a smaller white envelope to be signed and the ot her was for the participant to k eep which had the researchers office contact information in case he had questions in the future. The survey and consent forms had matching numbers (such as 001, 002, etc.) so that the researcher could match the participants survey with their consent form for future research on recidivism.5 The researchers asked the participants to look ove r the consent form while they explained the study and asked if anyone had any questions. The participants were each informed that participation was voluntary and that they would receive no compensation for th eir involvement in the study. If an individual refused to sign the consent form or did not wish to participate, he was thanked and asked politely to leave the room during the study. Before begi nning the focus group interv iew, the researchers set up two tape recorders (in case one failed), whic h would allow the researcher to transcribe the sessions at a later date. For each group, the fo cus group interview was conducted first and then the participants completed the survey. Although some individuals did not comply with the request, the participants were asked not to complete the survey until after the focus group interview. Because the focus group interviews covered similar content as the survey, the researchers believed that filling out the survey first may influence the groups answers to the focus group questions. 4 Again, there was another researcher on the project as well. Both researchers conducted the focus groups and administered the survey together. 5 In order for the participants answers to remain confid ential, the researcher kept the surveys separate from the consent forms, both of which were kept locked in an office at the University of Florida.


44 Focus Groups Traditionally, focus groups consist of partic ipants who are lead in a discussion by a moderator about a topic that is of interest to the researcher and the group (Stewart and Sha mdasni, 1994). Focus group sessions can target br oad topics as well as ve ry specific topics. In this study, the researcher started by asking ge neral questions and then narrowed them down as the interview progressed. The major advantage of focus groups is that they offer the chance to observe participants engaging in interaction that is concentrated on attitudes and experiences which are of interest to the researcher (Morga n and Spanish, 1984). The researcher believed the environment to be conducive for easy interacti on because in most cases (except for the PERC program where information on jail ex-offenders was gathered), the participants lived together and the interviews were conducted in a familiar place (either their home or in a normal meeting place). The researchers were able to conduct 8 focus groups (Table 3-1). The groups ranged in size from 3 to 12 participants and were usua lly conducted in a private setting in a common meeting place for the individuals including a living room (House of Hope, THORM Inc Ministries, and Center of Hope), a meeting room (Salvation Army ), or the facilities kitchen (Prisoners of Christ). Group 3, from the Pris oners of Christ, was in terviewed after a staff meeting at a local church where their substance abuse meetings were usually held and group 8, at the Center of Hope, was interviewed in the af ternoon and the individual s were allowed a break from their chores to participat e in the study. The groups were surveyed and interviewed in the evening following dinner, when they usually have their group Bible study. The directors allowed the individuals to participate in the study in re placement of a required me eting if it occurred at the same time. During the focus group sessions, th e participants would gene rally sit in a circle or around a table and the research er began the group by asking th e first question and allowing the


45 participants to respond at will.6 Depending on how many participan ts there were and how much they had to say, the focus group interviews last ed from about 15 minutes to 45 minutes. One limitation in conducting the focus gr oups was the researchers relati ve lack of control over the course of the discussions. At times it was difficult to keep the ex-offenders on topic. It was the researchers intention to conduct focus groups with each of the 10 participant groups. However, 2 groups did not participate in focus group interviews, one because the individuals chose not to and the other because th e environment did not allow for the interviews to take place. The first group that chose not to participate was from the Salvation Army Red Shield Lodge (group 5). Seven participants agreed to complete the survey but did not want to be interviewed because they werent being compensate d or because they reported being tired from a long day of work.7 The 9th group was the group of ja il participants from Pinellas County. The director of the PERC program allowed the rese archer access to these ex-offenders at their monthly meeting at the criminal courthouse, where he thought access to a room close to the individuals meeting room woul d be available to conduct interv iews. Because the ex-offenders have free time while waiting for their turn to meet with the PERC counselors, the researcher was going to conduct multiple interviews with up to 12 individuals at a time. Unfortunately, the director was unable to gain access to a room This environment was not favorable for conducting the focus group interviews because there was no privacy and it was too loud to make a clear recording. Instead, the ex-offenders were asked if they would fill out the survey. 6 One researcher would generally conduct the interview and the other would not participate in the discussion and take notes on the order of participants who spoke in order to assist the researchers in transcribing the interviews at a later date. 7 The other researcher on the proj ect conducted this session and recorded this in observation notes.


46 Surveys Due to there not being a private room to in terv iew the jail ex-offenders, the researchers set up a table in the hallway of the courthouse wher e individuals waited to talk to counselors. They asked the male ex-offenders who were waiti ng if they would be willing to fill out a survey and asked that if they were, to fill out the consen t form and survey and return it to the researcher at the table. Because some of the individuals involved in the PERC program had been incarcerated in a federal or stat e prison and some had been incarcerated in the local Pinellas County jail, when the participants returned the survey after completing it, the researcher asked them if they had been incarcerated in a state or federal prison. If the individual had only been incarcerated in jail, the researcher noted this with a J on the outside of the envelope to indicate this distinction. Nothing was marked on the envel ope if the participant ha d been incarcerated in prison. Individuals who were in groups that also participated in the focus group interviews completed the survey when the interview had finish ed. The researchers asked the participants to remove the survey from the large envelope th at was passed out at th e beginning of the session, which included two consent forms and a pen for th e participant to use. The participants were told to ask if they did not unde rstand a particular question or if they needed help reading or completing the survey. They were also reminde d that continued partic ipation was appreciated but not required. The survey generally took about 10 to 15 minutes to complete. Instruments Two separate instrum ents were used in this study to gain information on the importance of religion in the lives of ex-offenders. Th e first instrument used contained focus group interview questions that were developed with regard to previous literature to gain an understanding of what religion mean s to the subjects and to clarify their responses to later survey


47 questions based on the importance of religion in their lives. This information should be taken simply as descriptive to this sample and shoul d not be generalized to all ex-offenders. The second instrument used was a surv ey questionnaire. Most of the survey questions for this study were based on a study by Clear a nd his associates (2000) who calle d attention to both intrinsic and extrinsic meanings of religion for inmates in prison.8 In the following section, the research questions addressed in each instru ment will be discussed along w ith a more specific explanation of the questions asked in the focus group interviews and in the survey. Focus Group Questions In total, the participants were asked eight focus group que stions related to religion9 (Appendix B). Although none of the questions speci fically asked what reasons the ex-offenders turned to religion while they were incarcerated (in order to answer the first research question), multiple questions were asked to examine the role of religion in their lives. Examples of these questions include Are you religi ous? If so, how has this impact ed your attitude and experience since you have left prison?, If you are religi ous, what do you like most about your religion?, and What do you believe you must do to lead a reli gious life?. These questions were asked in hopes of being able to add to the information gather ed in the survey and to see what part religion played in their lives upon reentering societ y. One question asked during the focus group interviews, Have you ever claimed to be religiou s to get benefits from the system?, was asked based on literature that assumes there are inmate s and ex-offenders who say they are religious to gain access to programming that would otherwise be unavailable to them. Some of the halfway 8 The survey questions that were not based on Clear et al.s article were added based on the personal experience of the other researcher on the project who worked with inmates for 5 years. The survey questions were written by the other researcher, Saskia Santos. 9 The other researcher on the project asked questions for another study previous to these questions during the same interview period.


48 and transitional homes where the data were collected required that the participants of the program were religious or spiritual. Additional questions were asked that were not intended to answer the research question. These questions included, Have any of you re-offended since you have been out? If so, what have you done and why? If not, why not?, as well as, What do you think will keep you from re-offending in the future? What do you need help with?, and also Is th ere anything else youd like to tell me about your experien ces since you left prison? These questions were asked to see if the ex-offenders thought religious services would help them stop committing crime and successfully reenter the commun ity after their incarceration. Depending on the participants responses, several different follow-up questions were used to gain further information. Survey Questions The complete survey was a total of 13 page s and asked the participants 83 questions (Appendix A).10 The first four questions asked demogr aphic questions including age, sex, race and or/ethnicity, and education. Other descriptive information asked included the amount of time since being released from prison, the amou nt of time incarcerated, the states where the individuals incarceration took place, the level of security of those facilities, the amount of time since living in the halfway house or transiti onal program, and the offenses for which the individual had been convicted. The next few questions on the su rvey allow the researcher to examine the role of religion in the lives of ex-offe nders. First, the particip ants were asked their religious preference/denomination (None, Catholic, Protestant, and Other). Then, targeting the second research question on the differences betw een intrinsically and extrinsically motivated religiosity during incarceration, the participants were asked each in a separate questions how 10 Questions 11-60 were asked as part of another study.


49 important religion was in his life before, during, a nd after incarceration on a 4-point Likert scale from not important to very important and also how often he attended reli gious services before, during, and after incarceration (never to daily on a 6-point Likert scale). The final 16 questions of the survey addre ssed the first research question, What are the reasons inmates turn to religion during incarceratio n?. Each of these questions were asked on a 5 point Likert scale from Strongl y disagree to Strongly agree. As stated previously, most of these questions were developed from the themes a pparent in the Clear et al. study in 2000. In the Clear et al. study, the researcher s separate the reasons inmate s turn to religion into two categories, intrinsic and extrinsic. Intrinsic reasons of turning to re ligion during incarceration that are found in this survey are noted by asking the respondents to state their agreement with the following statements: I turned to religion to reliev e guilt, to deal with the loss of my freedom, to learn a new way of living, to forget I am in prison, and to rebuild family relationships. Agreement with the following statements note ex trinsic reasons for turn ing to religion during incarceration: I turned to religion for safety, to gain access to outsiders, to build relationships with other inmates, to receive privileges, because staff treated me better, because of a lack of anything else to do, as something to do, and my turning to religion was an act. Three statements asking the participants le vel of agreement did not come from the Clear et al. study, including: I turned to religion because it remi nds me of home, I turned to re ligion to get out of work, and I turned to religion to get out of the hot/cold weather.11 11 Again, these questions were based on the fello w researchers work experience with inmates.


50 Variables Dependent Variables The dependent variables included in this st udy consist of two ordi nal variables and two dichotomous variables. The first is an ordinal variable that is coded to represent four groups based on the frequency of attendance at religious services before, during, and after incarceration. These groups were assigned based on three survey questions that asked how often did you (or do you) go to religious services separately for before incarceration, during incarceration, and after incarceration. The responses for these questions included Ne ver (1), Seldom (2), Monthly (3), Weekly (4), More than once a week (5), and Daily (6). The following codes comprising the first dependent variable were assigned by the researcher: (1) particip ants who did not attend religious services often (weekly, more than once a week, or daily) before, during, or after incarceration (N= 18), (2) pa rticipants who attended religious services often before incarceration but did not attend often during incarceration (N= 9)12, (3) participants who did not attend services often before incarceration, but bega n attending often during incarceration and after incarceration (N=24), and (4) participants who attended services often before, during, and after incarceration (N=14). This depende nt variable included only 55 part icipants (out of 106) due to missing responses in one or more questions used to derive the groups. The second dependent variable is similar to the first, but was assigne d based on self-reported religious importance (i.e. How important was/is religion in your life? asked separately for before, during, and after incarceration). Response choices for these questions included Not at all important (1), A little important (2), Important (3), and Very important (4). The variable was coded as follows: (1) 12 Out of the 9 participants in this group, 5 individuals a ttended religious services befo re and after incarceration and 4 individuals only attended religious services before in carceration. The groups are si milar in that all of the individuals attended services before incarceration but did not attend during. These groups were combined to have a larger N.


51 participants who indicated that religion was not at all important or a little important before, during, and after incarceration (N= 9), (2) participants who said religion was important or very important before incarceration bu t not during incarceration (N=7)13, (3) participants who responded that religion was not important before incarceration, but was important or very important during incarceration and after incarceration (N=25), and (4) pa rticipants who said religion was important or very important before during, and after incarc eration (N=30). This variable also had many missing responses and in cluded only 64 participants (out of 106) who responded to all the questions that were used to make the variable. The third and fourth dependent variables are based only on the time when the participants were incarcerated. The first dependent variable is based on attendance at religious serv ices and distinguishes between individuals who attended services often during incarceration (c oded as 1) and those who did not attend services often during incar ceration (coded as 0). The second dependent variable (Model 2) is based on religious importa nce and was recoded so that 1 represented individuals who felt that religion was important or very important during incarcerati on and 0 represented individuals who felt that religion was not at all important or a little impor tant during incarceration. Independent Variables There are 5 independent variab les representing sam ple demo graphics included in this study. All of the respondents in the study are male, so the research er did not need to include sex as an independent variable. The first question of the survey asked the pa rticipants age by stating How old are you? and had a space available for th e participant to write his age. Race or ethnicity was determined by asking How would you describe your race and/or ethnicity? and 13 Out of the 7 participants in this group, 3 individuals indicated that religion was important or very important before and after incarceration and 4 individuals said religion was only important before incarceration. The groups are similar in that all of the individuals said religion was important before incarceration an d not during incarceration. These groups were combined to have a larger N.


52 the participant responded by circlin g 1 for White, 2 for Black/African American, 3 for Hispanic, and 4 for Other. Underneath the Other response, the survey indicated to specify the race or ethnicity if the particip ant circled 4 for Other. Because there were only 3 participants who answered Hispanic and 1 participant (Asian) who indicated Other, the researcher combined the Hispanic and Other categories a nd referred to the new category as Other. Each participants level of education was obtained by asking What is the highest level of education you have obtained? and were instructed to circle 1 for None, 2 for 1st grade, 3 for 2nd grade, and so on until 11th grade (indicated by circling 12). Above 11th grade, the choices were High School, GED, Some College, Associates degree, Bachel ors degree, and Other, noted by circling 13 through 18 respectively. If the participant ci rcled 18 (indicating Other), there was a line instructing him to specify his leve l of education. The researcher re coded this variab le so that the responses indicated the y ears of education obtained by the participant. This means that None (previously coded 1) was coded 0, 1st grade was coded 1 (for 1 year of education), 2nd grade was coded 2, etc. These responses are continuous until a High School level is obtained where the researcher coded High School and GED both as 12 y ears of education, Some college as 13 years, an Associates degree as 14 years, and a Bachelor s degree as 16 years of education. Next, to find out how long each inmate had been incarcer ated, the survey asked How long were you in prison? and the participants were asked to specify the number of m onths or years. The researcher converted all of thes e responses to months. Finall y, although it was not a question on the survey because the researcher had inte nded to sample only inmates who had been incarcerated in prison, a variable included in the study represents participants as having been incarcerated in prison or jail as a dummy variable with prison coded as 0 and jail coded as 1. As discussed in the section on samp le demographics (Table 3-2), th e sample is divided into prison


53 participants including focus group participants and non-focu s group participants, and jail participants. In hopes of being able to report on all prison particip ants together, a fishers exact test was run to test for any significant differences between th e focus group (N=50) and non-focus group (N=20) prison participants in their responses to the 16 questi ons on turning to religion that make up the extrinsic and intrinsi c scales (described below). The results indicate that the only question in which the two groups have significan tly different responses at the .05 significance level (p-value= .027) is on turning to reli gion as something to do, where the focus group participants are more likely to disagree with this statement. Since the groups differ in only one question out of 16, the researcher will discuss them only as prison participants. In order to examine Clear et al.s study of reasons inmates turn to religion during incarceration, the res earcher created two scales representi ng the findings in Cl ear et al. (2000) using the final 16 survey questions asking reason s of turning to religion during incarceration, all with responses on a 5-point Like rt scale ranging from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree and choice (3) equaling Unsure. Both scales were created using Reliability Analysis, or more specifically Internal Consistency Reliability, whic h is a form of reliability used to judge the consistency of results across items on the same test that are related to each other (Agresti, 2007). First, the intrinsic scale was created using 5 vari ables designed to measure intrinsic reasons for turning to religion. These variables include turni ng to religion to relieve guilt, to deal with the loss of freedom, to learn a new way of living, as a reminder of home, and to forget about being in prison. For this scale, 95 partic ipants (out of 106) had responses for all variables in the scale and the standardized item alpha was fairly high at .72, indicating a reliable scale. The extrinsic scale was comprised of 11 variables intended to measure extrinsic reasons for turning to religion during incarceration. These variable s include turning to religion (o r religious services) to gain


54 access to outsiders, for safety, to build relationships with other inmates, to rebuild relationships with family, because of a lack of anything else to do, for something to do, to get out of work, to receive privileges, because of better staff treatment to get out of hot/cold weather, and turning to religion as an act. This scal e includes 87 participants (out of 106) and has a very strong standardized item alpha of .87. Analysis The central issue for this study is to understand the reasons w hy inmates turn to religion during incarceration and if those reasons separate the groups ba sed on attendance at religious services and feelings of religious importance during incarceration. Therefore, the time periods that are of interest in this study are befo re incarceration, during incarceration, and after incarceration, with the main focus on during in carceration. To accomplish these goals, both quantitative and qualitative analysis will be us ed. Since the survey was the primary data collection, the analysis of that data will be discussed first. The survey was used as the primary data collection method and the focus group interv iews were conducted to provide more insight into the survey results and for comparison to the results found by Clear et al. (2000). Following the analysis of the survey data, the research er will discuss the anal ysis of the focus group interviews. In order to answer the first research ques tion, asking for what reasons inmates turn to religion during incarceration, freque ncies will be run on the 16 survey questions that make up the intrinsic and extrinsic sc ales discussed above. This will al low the researcher to report what percentage of participants said they turned to religion for each of the intrinsic and extrinsic reasons. Then, frequencies will be run on the qu estions that were used to code the dependent variables. This will allow the re searcher to report the percentage of participants that responded that they attended services frequently or not a nd felt that religion was important or not important


55 before, during, and after incarceration. Each of the frequencies will be reported for three samples including total participants, pris on participants, and jail participants. Binary logistic regression will be used to answer the second research question, Do inmates who turn to religion for intrinsic versus extrinsic reasons differ in the frequency of attendance at religious services or religious importance duri ng incarceration?. The analysis will be used determine if any predictors can distinguish group member ship based on a dichotomous dependent variable. Most often, the coefficients reported in logistic regression analyses are the intercept (B), the Wald chi-square test statis tic, and the Odds Ratio (E xp(B)), which shows the strength of association between a predictor and the response of interest (Press and Wilson, 1978). Logistic regression is favored when data are not normally distributed or group sizes are very unequal. Finally, the focus group data will be examined for possi ble themes that support or contradict the findings of the su rvey data. Qualitative examples that supported or expanded the results that were found from the quantitative data will be noted. Also, examples will be shown that confirm or contrast findings from the Clear et al (2000) study from which this research was based.


56 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS Research Question 1: For What Reasons Do Inmates Turn to Religion during Incarcera tion? In order to answer the first research questi on, frequencies were run across the total, prison and jail samples on the 16 reasons for why inma tes turn to religion (T able 4-1). The response choices for the items on the survey were a 5-point Likert Scale ranging from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree, with choice (3) equaling Unsure. In the frequency table seen below, the results are reported by the number and percentage of participan ts who disagreed or strongly disagreed with the reason for turn ing to religion. This is because for all of the statements except for two, the participants mean response indicated disagreement (mean closest to 2) with the statement. The two variables that did not follow this pattern are turning to religion as a new way of living, an intrinsic variable, a nd turning to religion to rebuild fa mily relationships, an extrinsic variable. For turning to religion as a new way of living, the total and prison samples had mean responses indicating that the pa rticipants agreed with this statement (means equal 3.60 and 3.69 respectively). The responses of the jail sample indicated that the average response to this statement was 3.40, or Unsure. For the variable measuring if participants turned to religion during incarceration to rebuild family relationships, all of the samples responded on average between Disagree (2) and Unsure (3). The mean s for all three groups ranged from 2.69 (jail sample) to 2.80 (prison sample). The next hi ghest average response for any other variable among the total sample was 2.24 for turning to relig ion to deal with their loss of freedom and turning to religion as a reminder of home. Among the prison samp le, the next highest means was 2.19 for the item indicating turning to religion to deal with the loss of freedom. Finally, among the jail sample, the next highest mean were 2.48 indicating


57Table 4-1. Participant Responses to Reasons of Turning to Religi on During Incarceration Total Sample Prison Sample* Jail Sample (N=106) (N=70) (N=36) N % Disagree/ Strongly Disagree Mean N % Disagree/ Strongly Disagree Mean N % Disagree/ Strongly Disagree Mean Intrinsic Reasons To relieve guilt68 70.1 2.10 51 75 2.06 17 58.6 2.21 To deal with loss of freedom61 63.5 2.24 45 67.2 2.19 16 55.2 2.34 To find a new way of living22 22.9 3.60 16 23.9 3.69 6 20.7 3.41 Reminder of home62 65.3 2.24 46 69.7 2.15 16 55.2 2.45 To forget about being incarcerated70 73.7 2.08 49 74.2 2.09 21 72.4 2.07 Extrinsic Reasons Access to outsiders74 69.8 1.96 56 83.6 2.06 18 62.1 2.17 Safety65 68.4 2.19 52 78.8 1.87 13 44.8 2.48 To build relationships with inmates66 70.2 2.10 49 75.4 2.00 17 58.6 2.31 Lack of anything to do77 81.1 1.91 57 86.4 1.83 20 69.0 2.07 To get out of work84 88.4 1.68 63 95.5 1.59 21 72.4 1.90 For something to do74 80.4 1.93 53 81.5 1.95 21 77.8 1.89 To receive privileges76 83.5 1.84 58 89.2 1.75 18 69.2 2.04 For better staff treatment78 84.8 1.84 58 89.2 1.75 20 74.1 2.04 To rebuild family relationships48 52.7 2.77 36 55.4 2.80 12 46.2 2.69 To get out of hot/cold weather74 80.4 1.95 55 84.6 1.83 19 70.4 2.22 My being religious was an act76 71.7 1.82 56 87.5 1.69 20 74.1 2.15 *The prison sample includes focus group prison participants (N=50) and non-focus group prison participants (N=20). The columns in the table noting % Disagree are participants w ho disagreed or strongly disa greed with the statement.


58 disagreement with turning to religion for safe ty and 2.45 indicating turn ing to religion as a reminder of home. Research Question 2: Differences in Inmates w ith Intrinsic and Extrinsic Values Frequencies: Attendance at Religious Services and Religious Importance The following analyses will be run to determin e if having intrinsic versus extrinsic values is significantly related to the frequency of a ttendance at religious serv ices and self-reported religious importance during incarc eration. In order to gain a better understanding of how the participants responded to questions, frequencies we re run for the total sample, the prison sample, and the jail sample on these questions (Table 4-2 and Table 4-3). The frequency of attendance at religious services during incarceration is similar. During incarcerati on, 51.1% of the total sample, 56.1% of the prison sample, and 55.6% of th e jail sample attended religious services often. Missing responses were an issue especially for the jail sample where 27.7% of the participants did not respond to this survey ques tion. The results of the frequencies run across the three sample for religious importance during incarceration showed that the total sample and prison sample were similar in their responses. During incarceration, 67.7% of the total sample and 72.7% of the prison sample reported that religion was important or very important. However, only 38.5% of the jail participants repo rted that religion was important. The amount of missing responses from the group ranged from 8.5% of respondents in the jail sample to 12.3% of respondents in the total sample. Logistic Regression Next, logistic regression was run to determ ine if any predictors can distinguish group membership based on dichotomous dependent variables instead of th e ordinal dependent variables used in the previous analysis. The independent variables in cluded in the following models included age, amount of time incarcerated (in months), years of education, whether the


59 Table 4-2. Participant Responses on Frequenc y of Attendance at Religious Services Attended Services Did Not Attend Missing Responses N % N % N % Total Sample (N=106) Before Incarceration 27 30.3 62 69.7 17 1 During Incarceration 47 51.1 45 48.9 14 1 After Incarceration 58 63.0 34 37.0 14 1 Prison Sample (N=70) Before Incarceration 20 30.8 45 69.2 5 7 During Incarceration 37 56.1 29 43.9 4 5 After Incarceration 46 68.7 21 31.3 3 4 Jail Sample (N=36) Before Incarceration 7 51.9 17 48.1 12 3 During Incarceration 10 55.6 16 44.4 10 2 After Incarceration 12 59.1 13 40.9 11 3 Table 4-3. Participant Responses on Importance of Religion Religion Important Religion Not Missing Responses N % N % N % Total Sample (N=106) Before Incarceration 40 44.0 51 56.0 15 14.2 During Incarceration 63 67.7 30 32.3 13 12.3 After Incarceration 71 75.5 23 24.5 12 11.3 Prison Sample (N=70) Before Incarceration 27 39.1 42 60.9 1 1.4 During Incarceration 48 72.7 18 27.3 4 5.7 After Incarceration 57 85.1 10 14.9 3 2.8 Jail Sample (N=36) Before Incarceration 13 48.0 9 52.0 14 38.9 During Incarceration 15 38.5 12 61.5 9 8.5 After Incarceration 14 29.2 13 70.8 9 8.5 participant was incarcerated in prison (coded 0) or jail (coded 1), race (coded 0 for nonwhite and 1 for white), and both the intrinsic and extrinsic scales. The first model based on attendance at religious services was based on only 60 responses (out of 106) due to the amount of missing responses in the scales and inde pendent variables. This test had a chi-square statistic of 4.950 indicating a significance level of .666 (Table 4-4). None of the predictors in the model had a


60 Wald statistic that reached a level of significance (even at .10) and thus were not able to predict group membership. The second model run using logistic regression was to determine if any of the same independent variables used in the firs t model could predict the importance of religion. This model included 65 participant responses, mo re than Model 1 but still with many missing responses. Along with the first model, the s econd overall model does not reach a level of significance. The chi-square statistic is 14.424 and has a p-value of .087. Out of the 7 independent variables included in the model, only intrinsic scale is a significant predictor of the importance of religion during incarceration, with a p-value of .036 (Table 4-4). The findings show an intercept of 1.930 and an odds ratio (e xp(b)) of 6.887 indicating that participants who find that religion is important are almost 6.9 times more likely to have intrinsic values. The extrinsic scale almost reached significance at th e .10 level with a p-value of .122 and an intercept of -1.560. With a negative intercept, the relati onship indicates that individuals with more extrinsic values are less likely to perceive religion as being important during incarceration. Table 4-4. Logistic Regression Analysis: Frequency of Attendance and Religious Importance Model 1: Attendance Model 2: Importance Variables B Wald Odds Ratio B Wald Odds Ratio Age .030 .739 1.030.029 .449 1.029 Race .015 .001 1.015-.001 .000 .999 Education -.094 .414 .910-.123 .380 .884 Time Incarcerated -.003 .322 .997-.001 .071 .999 Prison or Jail Inmate .455 .334 1.5761.0691.202 2.991 Extrinsic Scale -.685 .828 .504-1.5602.387 .210 Intrinsic Scale .874 1.940 2.3971.9304.393* 6.887 *p .05 Note: Model 1 (N=60) 2 = 4.950, 7 df, p=.666; Model 2 (N=65) 2 =12.424, 7 df, p=.087 Focus Group Data The standardized design of the focus group in terviews allows the researcher to com pare the responses of partic ipants from group to group (Morgan, 1996:142-143). In order to analyze


61 the focus group interviews, the recording of each interview was transcribed verbatim.1 Notes taken during the focus group interviews on the or der of the participan ts who spoke and the atmosphere of the discussions f acilitated this process. Each of the focus groups was conducted using the same questions as a guideline for th e interviews. Though the questions may not have been asked exactly the same way, there were simila r responses across groups. In order to extract common themes from the interviews, the resear cher grouped the partic ipants responses for similar questions asked of each group. Reporting the results of the focus group interviews is important because the results of the logistic regressions did not shed very much light on the article of which this study was focused. However, some themes that emerged when the individuals in the study were prompted more generally about religion throughout their lives (especially during incarceration) he lp to highlight the inmate pers pectives shown in Clear et al. (2000). This section is designed to provide a few individua l perspectives from participants in the focus groups2 that represent both the intr insic and extrinsic values pointed out by Clear et al. Intrinsic Perspectives Many of the inmate perspectives indicating in trinsic reasons of turn ing to religion noted in the Clear et al. study were ec hoed by the former inmates that participated in the focus group interviews in this study. First, the Clear et al. study indicated th at inmates turn to religion in order to deal with feelings of guilt (2000). One participant in the first focus group conducted in Gainesville, Florida indicated th at you realize how much you hurt your familythat was, ah, humbling experience to know that I really hurt my family. Anothe r intrinsic reason for turning to religion in the Clear et al. study was to find a new way of life. One former inmate in this 1 Both researchers took part in transcribing the focus group interviews. When one researcher transcribed, the other researcher verified the transcription by listening to the tape and comparing it to the transcription. 2 As discussed previously, all participants in the focus group interviews were previously incarcerated in prison (versus jail).


62 study stated that its about changing your life. Changing what you do. You cant go to church and go around and buy some drug and do it right be hind it. One ex-offender residing at the Center of Hope in Clearwater, Florida describe s how he has faith that a full effort in the teachings of the Bible will pay off after his release from prison. He stated I fully believe if someone attempts to live by th e Bible to their best ability, um, that most likely they will not go back to prison. Of cour se, if it is not up to their best ability then they fail. And Im not saying that is an easy task of anybody, but Im saying if you put your whole heart into trying, or allowing the holy spirit to work through you to help you try then it is a lot easier I think. This participant also stated that there is certai n times when you get blasted with the feelings of love, um, the holy spirit. Once you feel that love, Gods love for the first time in your life, that strong, you realize that is better feeling than any drug or drink you have ever had or anything else. Clear and his associates pointed out that it was common to observe a mutual respect among inmates from different reli gions and that the religious bonde d together because of their mutual understanding of the needs that motivated them toward faith (58). The same participant from this study that voiced the previous statement coul d not put words to the experience of praying with othe rs by saying that when there is a bunch of people gathered together all in prayer and in spirit, its, its something indesc ribable unless you go and experience it yourself. For other inmates, religion is simply away to feel understood when society does not understand them. A participant from Clearwater, Florida voices that what it does for me is it gives me a chance to know a God of my understa nding. It is a beautiful thing because I know what Ive been through and I know where Im at ri ght now, and I would rather be where Im at now cause I like the light, the dont like the dark. Extrinsic Perspectives The ex-offenders in this study did not shed light on m any of the extrinsic reasons indicated in the Clear et al. study. One participant described inmates who turned to religion


63 during their incarcera tion for safety, similar to how it was described in the Clear et al. study (2000, 64-66). The participant from the Prisoner s of Christ program in Jacksonville, Florida stated that some of them (inmates) be penis dod ging. Like a lot of white boys, they be scared, not being racist, theyd be s cared so they go behind that to like, you knowfor protection. Along the same lines, another former inmate from the Prisoners of Christ program in Jacksonville, Florida stated that well, they around people, who kind of like watch over them more because they, for the presence of being a Chri stian and stuff. Because they got faith-based dorms and stuffand some of the guys when the officer see you try, you know, like youre trying to do right, they kind of like, I wont say respect you more, but they kind of look out more for so-called Christians than they would a pers on who be getting in and out of trouble or you know. Not all inmates agreed that inmates received any benefits from participating in religious activities. This can be seen in the statement of an ex-offender from the Center of Hope in Clearwater, Florida. He stated, I was not aware of any benefits that [the officers] give somebody at the prison I was in by going to church. I was involved for a while, active in the church. Off and on, and I didnt see where it benefited me. So, other than for your own peace of mind Im not sure. Most of the other statements from participants regarding turning to religion for extrinsic reasons indicated simply that many inmates are hypocrites and attend services but arent actually religious. For example, when the researcher asked the focus group if they had seen anybody in prison claiming to be religious, one participant re sponded oh yes! Oh, there is so many of those hypocrites, its pathetic!...they in the stalls w ith freak books, and they cursing and they doin all these things that you know un-Godly. So when you see someone trying, you know when they are different. A final particip ant response indicated that individuals simply turn to religion because of the st ressful situation of being in prison. He said that theyre not


64 acting, its like a box full of pray ers. You know, theyre in a bad situation, they reach inbut as soon as the stress is off of them, they are right back to normal.


65 CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION Summary This study was designed to quantitatively test them es that emerged in a study of inmate perspectives of the value of religion in prison co nducted by Clear et al. (2 000). The Clear et al. study indicated that inmates turn to religion for mu ltiple reasons in order to handle deprivations they encounter in the prison environment. Two se ts of values were described in the article as reasons why inmates turn to religion, intrinsic values and extrinsic values. The explanation of intrinsic values noted that inmates turn to religio n to deal with the loss of their freedom, to deal with their guilt, and to find a new way of living. The reasons indicating that inmates turn to religion for extrinsic values include d turning to religion for safety or protection, to rebuild family relationships, to gain access to outsiders, for mate rial comforts, and to build relationships with other inmates. To determine why the participants in this sample were turning to religion during incarceration, the only variable that showed agre ement (as shown by frequencies) was turning to religion for a new way of living. Th e participants in this study re sponded that they disagreed that they had turned to religion for a ny of the other intrinsic or extrin sic reasons. To test the findings of this study, the researcher pe rformed two logistic regression models to see if 7 different predictors including, age, race, education, time sp ent incarcerated, having been incarcerated in prison or jail, and the intrinsic and extrinsic scal es, could distinguish par ticipants that attended religious services often during in carceration and those that did not as well as participants who felt that religion was important or very important versus those that did not feel that religion was important during incarceration. The first model test ing the predictors on the frequency of church attendance during incarceration did not show signif icance in the overall mode l or for any of the individual predictors. The second model testing the importance of relig ion during incarceration


66 was did not show significance for the overall mode l, but the intrinsic scale was a significant predictor. The relationship indicat ed that the odds of feeling that religion was important or very important during incarceration were much higher for individuals with intrinsic values. The final part of the analysis included showing statements from participants in the study on why inmates turn to religion for both intrinsic and extrinsi c reasons. Generally, there was more anecdotal support for the intrinsic values that were laid out in the Clear et al. article. Relevance of Findings to the Literature Most of the research on religion in prison i nvolves determ ining if religious attendance and importance reduces prison infractions and re cidivism rates upon being released. This study was unable to add to this literature because it di d not include measures of recidivism. The few articles reporting inmate perspectives on reasons why they turn to religion are qualitative and simply relay general themes gathered from one -on-one or group intervie ws (Clear et al., 2000; Dammer, 2002). This study did not find that inmates turned to re ligion for any extrinsic reasons and the only variable that showed support as a reason that the part icipants turned to religion was to find a new way of living, an in trinsic reason discussed in Clear et al.. This finding did show support that reasons that was disc ussed in the Clear et al. study. This study took Clear et al.s study one step further by attempting to distinguish participants who attended religious services often during incarceration and thos e that did not as well as those that felt that religion was important during incarceration against those that did not. This study was unable to distinguish inmates who attended services frequently from those that did not dur ing incarceration with several predictors including sc ales representing intrinsic and extrinsic values. The results indicating that offenders who fe lt that religion was important dur ing incarceration are logical due to the nature of intrinsic values. It makes sense that inmates turn to relig ion in order to learn a new way of living or to deal with the loss of their freedom because they are truly or inherently


67 religious and that inmates that tu rn to religion in order to build relationships with other inmates and receive privileges ar e not honestly religious. Policy Implications The finding in this study that is re levant to policy implications for institutional religious programming is that within this sample, there wa s no difference in the frequency of attendance at religious services among inmates who turned to religion more for intrinsic reasons (or had less disagreement that they turned to religion for in trinsic reasons) than for extrinsic reasons. As indicated in the beginnin g of the paper, a national survey co nducted by the U.S. Department of Justice shows that about 32 percen t of sampled inmates participate in religious activities such as Bible studies and church services (1993). With massive numbers of inmates housed in prisons across the United States, the number of inmates partic ipating in religious serv ices is very large. The Florida Department of Corr ections indicates that 23,000 inmates per week (or 42% of the inmate population) participate in religious pr ogramming. Many inmates are likely to attend various religious services because of a lack of ot her programs available. If inmates who turn to religion for extrinsic reasons are at tending religious services as fre quently as inmates who turn to religious services for intrinsic reasons, as was found in this study, the inmates who turn for extrinsic reasons may be reducing th e quality of service for inmates who are truly religious. It is possible that developing more programs that offer similar benefits as the non-religious benefits inmates receive from attending religious services, su ch as the ability to bu ild relationships with other inmates and gain access to outsiders such as family and pr ogram volunteers, will increase the quality of religious programming for inmates that are truly religious Not only that, it is likely that benefits provided by non-religious programs would better offer what non-religious inmates are looking for by attend ing religious services.


68 The improvement or implementation of severa l services or programs may help provide extrinsic benefits that an inmate may receive fr om attending religious serv ices. Services that promote more contact between inmates and thei r families would provide another avenue to rebuild family relationships. National studies show that maintaining contact between inmates and their families can help reduce recidivism (OPPAGA Report, 2007). Many programs with this goal are offered, but the effectiveness may be reduced due to implementation problems. The OPPAGA Report notes that the Florida Department of Corrections is taki ng steps to strengthen inmate family contact by reduc ing its telephone commissions and inmate phone rates, in addition to correcting other proble ms with family visitation such as poorly defined dress codes and other rules, effectively managing the time of vis iting children and youth, and insufficient statewide oversight (OPPAGA Report, 2007). Many education services and programs have the ability to offer benefits such as building relationships with other inmates and/or gaining access to outsiders. For example, the Florida Department of Corrections offers volunteer lite racy programs in which trained inmates volunteer to tutor inmates who want to improve their educ ation, but who do not want to attend class, or who are unable to attend class due to job assignment, length of sentence, etc. (Florida Department of Corrections). Because the volunt eer literacy program is run by inmates, other incarcerated individuals ar e able to foster relationships as we ll as increase their education. GED programs offered by community member voluntee rs would also provide access to outsiders in the community and help obtain higher educational achievements for inmates. Study Limitations and Suggest ions for Future Research There are several limitations of this study. Th e first limitation is that the study is unable to generalize the results to other prison samples. This is because the participants in the sample were comprised of inmates who had been incarcerat ed in both prison and jail facilities. This was


69 due to the fact that the sample was available a nd the researcher did not want to lose valuable participants. Other limitations that reduce th e generalizability of th e study revolve around the focus group interviews. Not every individual in th e study participated in focus group interviews. None of the individuals from the jail sample participated due to the lack of an acceptable interview location and thus the researcher was not able to hear what jail inmates had to say about religion during incarceration. Another limitation re lated to the focus group interviews was that not all of the interview questions were asked the same way for each interview. This was due to the inexperience of the researcher in conducting focus group interviews. In most of the focus group interviews, only a few of th e participants voiced responses. Therefore, the focus group interview responses are not genera lizable even to the focus group participant sample. Also, more questions should have been asked that were directly related to reasons why inmates turned to religion during incarceration so th at the results would have been directly correlated with the quantitative part of the study. A large limitation of the study involved the wo rding of the survey questions. Since the researcher did not intend to involve jail particip ants in the study, some of the survey questions ask specifically about experiences while incarcerated in prison. These questions include How long since you have been out of prison? and How long were you in prison?. When the jail participants were completing the survey, many of them were confused about the wording of these questions and many did not respond, most li kely due to this confusion. Another limitation with the survey measure was the lack of surv ey questions measuring the reasons why inmates turn to religion since their rel ease from incarceration. These questions would have allowed the researcher to determine if the ex-offenders were turning to religion for different reasons since


70 being released from incarceration and since regain ing some of the depriv ations that they had experienced while incarcerated. An additional limitation of this study is th e amount of missing responses to survey questions. There were numerous participants who did not answer one or more of the survey questions regarding religious atte ndance, religious impor tance, and reasons of turning to religion during incarceration. Not only that there were 15 participants who either stopped answering questions upon reaching the reasons of turning to religion during incarceration, or skipped a whole page (containing up to 10 questions) in this section. The amount of missing responses severely reduced the amount of participant responses included in the logistic regression analyses. The final limitation is the selection bias de als with the halfway a nd transitional programs where the samples were gathered for this study. To enter the programs, in most cases individuals must declare themselves religious, and sometimes specifically Christian. Also, in most of the programs, the Chaplain from the institution is the person who must refe r the individual to the program. It is hard to say if the participants knew that most of the reentry programs such as the ones used in this study, accept only religious individuals and require (or highly recommend) participation in religio us services and activities upon accepta nce. Upon starting this study, the goal was to find a sample of ex-offenders fr om halfway houses with both religious and nonreligious orientations. This wa s not possible due to the fact th at there were no such programs that the researchers could find within 2 hours drivi ng distance from Gainesville, Florida. Due to this selection bias, it is hard to determine the validity of the results sinc e many of the individuals in the study continued to attend religious servi ces and report that relig ion was important after incarceration when they did so dur ing incarceration (Table 4-2 and Table 4-3). The participants may have responded in this way due to forced participation in religi ous components of the


71 programs that are required or because the individu als feared getting kicked out of the program if they reported that religion wa s unimportant. Although the resear chers clearly indicated to the participants that their responses would be kept anonymous, some of the individuals may have felt insecure in reporting their true feelings. The most obvious direction for future rese arch to measure other possible reasons for inmates turning to religion during incarceration. Then, if other reasons are indicated, the research should measure differences recidivism between inmates who turned to religion for intrinsic reasons and those that turned to religio n for extrinsic reasons. Future research should take into consideration the limitati ons encountered in this study. Th e research would be better if the sample included only individuals who had been incarcerated in prison or only individuals who had been incarcerated in jail. If the research were to measure both, larger samples would be necessary. An ideal study would use a longitudi nal to measure currently incarcerated inmates on their religious perspectives and participation in religious services as we ll as other programs and then measure recidivism at multiple intervals upon their release. Other possible future research could determine if introducing more programs (suc h as the ones discussed above) that provide benefits such as those that a non-religious inma te would receive by attend ing religious services would improve recidivism rates further than current studies on religious attendance and importance.


72 APPENDIX A SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE 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 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)__________________


73 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. ____________________________________________________


74 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. _________________________________________________________


75 Circle the response that best fits your answ er. Please remember to answer these questions based on your 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


76 Now I would like to know about your experi ences 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


77 Now I would like to ask you about how oth er inmates were treated. How often were the following informal sanctions uti lized by officers towards OTHER inmates? (Circle the response 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


78 How effective do you believe the following sanctions were at informally CONTROLLING THE INMATES during your last incarceration experien ce? (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 Correctional officers often interact with inmates for a variety of reasons. I am interested in knowing why correctiona l officers interacted with YOU on an informal level. (Circle the response that best fits your answer.)


79 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


80 I felt most officers were: (Circle the respo nse 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 about religion. We are hoping to learn more about the role of religion in prison. Circle or fill in the respon se 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


81 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


82 Please tell me how much religion affected yo ur 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


83 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


84 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?


85 REFERENCES Agresti, A. (2007). An Introduction to Categorical Data Analysis. 2nd Edition. Wiley Publishing. Hoboken, NJ. Allport, G.W. (1960). The individual and his religion: A psychological interpretation. New York: Macmillan. Allport, G.W. (1956). The Religious Context of Prejudice. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 5, 447-457. American Correctional Asso ciation. (1998) Corrections Compendium, 23(4). Americans United for Separation of Church and State v. Prison Fellowship Ministries Memorandum Opinion by District Court, 2006. Americans United for Separation of Church and State v. Prison Fellowship Ministries United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, No. 06-2741. Filed December 3, 2007. Aos, S., Miller, M, and Drake, E. (2006). Evidence-Based Adult Corrections Programs: What Works and WhatDoes Not. Olympia, Wash.: Washington State Institute for Public Policy, 1. Burnside, J., Adler, J., Loucks, N., and Rose, G.R. (2001). Kainos Community in Prisons: Report of an Evaluation. Presented to Resear ch Development and Sta tistics Directorate. Home Office: HM Prison Service. Available online: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs/kainos_finalrep.pdf Bush, G. W (2001a, May 29). Executive order 13199: Establishm ent of White House Office of faith-based and community initiatives Available online: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/text/20010129-3.html Clear, T.R., Stout, B.D., Da mmer, H.R., Kelly, L., Hardyman, P.L., and Shapiro C. (1992b). Final Report: Feasibility Study of the Impact of Religious Involvement on Prisoners. Published by School of Criminal Justice, Rutg ers University, for the Justice Fellowship Inc., Washington, DC. Clear, T.R., Harydman, P.L., Stout, B., Lucke n, K., and Dammer, H.R. (2000). The Value of Religion in Prison. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 16(1), 53-74. Clear, T.R., and Sumter, M. (2002). Prisoners, pr ison, and religion: Religion and adjustment to prison. Religion, the Community, and the Rehabilitation of Criminal Offenders 127-159. Clemmer, D. (1940). The prison community New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.


86 Correctional Compass. (2002). Impact of inmate participation in chaplaincy programs. Florida Department of Corrections, 1-18. Available online: http://www.dc.state.fl .us/pub/com pass/0208/12.html Dammer, H.R. (2002). The reasons for religious involvement in the corr ectional environment. Religion, the Community, and the Reh abilitation of Criminal Offenders 35-58. The Hawthorne Press. Falk, G.J. (1961). Religion, personal integration and criminality. Journal of Educational Sociology 35(4), 159-161. Florida Department of Corrections. Available online: http://www.dc.state.fl.us/ Hoge, R. (1972). A Validated Intrin sic Religious Motivation Scale. Journ al for the Scientific Study of Religion 11(4), 369-376. Irwin, J., and Cressey, D. (1962). Thieve s, convicts, and the inmate culture. Social Problems, 10, 142-155. Jablecki, Lawrence T. (2005). A critique of faith-based prison programs. Available online: www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-135814547.html Jiang, S., and Fisher-Giolar ndo, M. (2002). Inm ate misconduct: A test of the deprivation, importation, and situational models. The Prison Journal, 82, 335-358. Johnson, B. (2004). Religious programs and reci divism among former inmates in prison fellowship programs: A long-term follow-up study. Justice Quarterly 21(2), 329-354. Johnson, B.R. (2002). Assessing the impact of religious programs and prison industry on recidivism: An exploratory study. Texas Journal of Corrections, 28, 7-11. Johnson, B.R., Larson, D.B., and Pitts, T.C. (1997). Religious programs, institutional adjustment, and recidivism among former inmate s in prison fellowship programs. Justice Quarterly, 14(1), 146-166. Lupu, I.C., and Tuttle, R.W. (2006). The State of the Law 2006: Legal Developments Affecting Government Partnerships with Faith-Based Or ganizations, in the Roundtable on Religion and Social Welfare Policy. Nelson A. Rockefe ller Institute of Government. Albany, NY. Morgan, D.L. and Spanish, M.T. (1984). Focus Groups: A New Tool for Qualitative Research. Qualitative Sociology Vol. 7(3), 253-271 Morgan, D.L. (1996). Focus Groups. Annual Review of Sociology 22, 129-152. OConner,T.P., and Perreyclear, M. (2002). Prison religion in action and its influence on offender rehabilitation. Religion, the Community, and the Rehabilitation of Criminal Offenders, 11-33.


87 OPPAGA. (2007). Florida Government Accountability Report. Florida Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability. Tallahassee, FL. Paterline, B.A., and Petersen, D.M. (1999). Struct ural and social psychological determinants of prisonization. Journal of Criminal Justice 27(5). Petersilia, J. (1995). A crime control rationale for reinvesting in community corrections. The Prison Journal, 75, 479-496. Roman, C. G., Wolff, A., Correa, V., and Bu ck, Janeen. (2007). Assessing intermediate outcomes of a faith-based residential prisoner reentry program. Research on Social Work Practice, 17, 199-215. Stewart, D.W., and Shamdasani, P.N. (1994). Focus Groups: theory and practice SAGE Publications, Inc. California. Sykes, G. (1958). The Society of Captives: A Study of Maximum Security Prisons Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Sykes, G.M., and Messinger, S.L. (1960). The inmate social system. In R. Cloward, S.L. Messinger and G.M. Sykes. (Eds.), Theoretical Studies in the Social Organization of the Prison. New York: Social Science Research Council. The InnerChange Freedom Initiative Newsroom. (December, 2007). Former Supreme Court Justice Leads Eighth Circuit in Overturning Fe deral Judge's Ruling to Shut Down Effective Faith-Based Prison Program. Available online: www.demossnewspond.com/ifi/rel eases/AppealR uling120307.htm Wilson, M. (2003). Advocacy group sues Iowa over state-funded re ligious program. The Roundtable on Religion and Social Welfare Policy. The Associated Press. Available online: http://www.religionandsocialpolic y.org/news/article.cfm ?id=404 U.S. Department of Justice. (1993). Survey of State Prisoners, 1991, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.


88 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Jessica began her college career at the Univer sity of Florida in 2002 after graduating from Oviedo High School, near Orlando, Fl orida. Jessica started out as a music performance major playing the clarinet and eventu ally found her niche in the crim inology department. She decided to continue her education as a gator and entered the Crimi nology, Law and Society graduate program in Fall 2006. Jessicas research has fo cused on incarcerated pop ulations and prisoner reentry. Upon graduating in August 2008, she hope s to put her knowledge to practice working for the criminal justice system in Dallas, Texas, near family.

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 E20101203_AAAACS INGEST_TIME 2010-12-03T17:47:25Z PACKAGE UFE0022322_00001
102984 F20101203_AABEVC chiarizio_j_Page_64.jp2
87998 F20101203_AABEQF chiarizio_j_Page_39.jpg
1051981 F20101203_AABELJ chiarizio_j_Page_06.jp2
1051947 F20101203_AABEVD chiarizio_j_Page_66.jp2
11951 F20101203_AABEQG chiarizio_j_Page_03.jpg
F20101203_AABELK chiarizio_j_Page_86.tif
1051975 F20101203_AABEVE chiarizio_j_Page_68.jp2
26428 F20101203_AABEQH chiarizio_j_Page_56.QC.jpg
27144 F20101203_AABELL chiarizio_j_Page_01.jpg
1051978 F20101203_AABEVF chiarizio_j_Page_69.jp2
27306 F20101203_AABEQI chiarizio_j_Page_43.QC.jpg
87624 F20101203_AABELM chiarizio_j_Page_15.jpg
1051979 F20101203_AABEVG chiarizio_j_Page_70.jp2
635930 F20101203_AABEQJ chiarizio_j_Page_78.jp2
4099 F20101203_AABELN chiarizio_j_Page_25thm.jpg
917354 F20101203_AABEVH chiarizio_j_Page_71.jp2
28830 F20101203_AABEQK chiarizio_j_Page_07.jpg
1593 F20101203_AABELO chiarizio_j_Page_03thm.jpg
431936 F20101203_AABEVI chiarizio_j_Page_72.jp2
7236 F20101203_AABEQL chiarizio_j_Page_19thm.jpg
11441 F20101203_AABELP chiarizio_j_Page_37.QC.jpg
207772 F20101203_AABEVJ chiarizio_j_Page_74.jp2
27372 F20101203_AABEQM chiarizio_j_Page_65.QC.jpg
493625 F20101203_AABEVK chiarizio_j_Page_76.jp2
7518 F20101203_AABEQN chiarizio_j_Page_53thm.jpg
F20101203_AABELQ chiarizio_j_Page_87.tif
510780 F20101203_AABEVL chiarizio_j_Page_77.jp2
7708 F20101203_AABEQO chiarizio_j_Page_28thm.jpg
951136 F20101203_AABELR chiarizio_j_Page_08.jp2
531409 F20101203_AABEVM chiarizio_j_Page_80.jp2
F20101203_AABEQP chiarizio_j_Page_11.tif
1051940 F20101203_AABELS chiarizio_j_Page_62.jp2
478168 F20101203_AABEVN chiarizio_j_Page_81.jp2
390749 F20101203_AABEQQ chiarizio_j_Page_75.jp2
1051986 F20101203_AABELT chiarizio_j_Page_48.jp2
333966 F20101203_AABEVO chiarizio_j_Page_83.jp2
88374 F20101203_AABEQR chiarizio_j_Page_50.jpg
F20101203_AABELU chiarizio_j_Page_07.tif
1051877 F20101203_AABEVP chiarizio_j_Page_87.jp2
85625 F20101203_AABEQS chiarizio_j_Page_32.jpg
89511 F20101203_AABELV chiarizio_j_Page_53.jpg
F20101203_AABEVQ chiarizio_j_Page_02.tif
F20101203_AABEQT chiarizio_j_Page_05.tif
F20101203_AABEVR chiarizio_j_Page_04.tif
26318 F20101203_AABEQU chiarizio_j_Page_54.QC.jpg
28778 F20101203_AABELW chiarizio_j_Page_20.QC.jpg
F20101203_AABEVS chiarizio_j_Page_06.tif
21316 F20101203_AABELX chiarizio_j_Page_71.QC.jpg
F20101203_AABEVT chiarizio_j_Page_10.tif
27336 F20101203_AABEQV chiarizio_j_Page_61.QC.jpg
49080 F20101203_AABELY chiarizio_j_Page_57.jpg
F20101203_AABEVU chiarizio_j_Page_12.tif
79796 F20101203_AABEQW chiarizio_j_Page_05.jpg
889668 F20101203_AABELZ chiarizio_j_Page_25.jp2
F20101203_AABEVV chiarizio_j_Page_14.tif
28656 F20101203_AABEQX chiarizio_j_Page_63.QC.jpg
F20101203_AABEVW chiarizio_j_Page_15.tif
1051920 F20101203_AABEOA chiarizio_j_Page_36.jp2
1804 F20101203_AABEQY chiarizio_j_Page_22thm.jpg
F20101203_AABEVX chiarizio_j_Page_16.tif
622756 F20101203_AABEOB chiarizio_j_Page_07.jp2
81189 F20101203_AABEQZ chiarizio_j_Page_46.jpg
F20101203_AABEVY chiarizio_j_Page_19.tif
1051977 F20101203_AABEOC chiarizio_j_Page_58.jp2
F20101203_AABEVZ chiarizio_j_Page_20.tif
41694 F20101203_AABEOD chiarizio_j_Page_77.jpg
88055 F20101203_AABETA chiarizio_j_Page_60.jpg
26679 F20101203_AABEOE chiarizio_j_Page_32.QC.jpg
92089 F20101203_AABETB chiarizio_j_Page_62.jpg
28336 F20101203_AABFAA chiarizio_j_Page_51.QC.jpg
29883 F20101203_AABEOF chiarizio_j_Page_34.QC.jpg
89042 F20101203_AABETC chiarizio_j_Page_63.jpg
7729 F20101203_AABFAB chiarizio_j_Page_51thm.jpg
75580 F20101203_AABEOG chiarizio_j_Page_87.jpg
10190 F20101203_AABEYA chiarizio_j_Page_12.QC.jpg
14818 F20101203_AABETD chiarizio_j_Page_64.jpg
7574 F20101203_AABFAC chiarizio_j_Page_52thm.jpg
F20101203_AABEOH chiarizio_j_Page_68.tif
26497 F20101203_AABEYB chiarizio_j_Page_13.QC.jpg
89803 F20101203_AABETE chiarizio_j_Page_66.jpg
28166 F20101203_AABFAD chiarizio_j_Page_53.QC.jpg
12289 F20101203_AABEOI chiarizio_j_Page_72.QC.jpg
7404 F20101203_AABEYC chiarizio_j_Page_13thm.jpg
84576 F20101203_AABETF chiarizio_j_Page_67.jpg
F20101203_AABEOJ chiarizio_j_Page_58.tif
7635 F20101203_AABEYD chiarizio_j_Page_14thm.jpg
83655 F20101203_AABETG chiarizio_j_Page_69.jpg
5375 F20101203_AABFAE chiarizio_j_Page_55thm.jpg
3709 F20101203_AABEOK chiarizio_j_Page_79thm.jpg
27931 F20101203_AABEYE chiarizio_j_Page_15.QC.jpg
66763 F20101203_AABETH chiarizio_j_Page_71.jpg
7196 F20101203_AABFAF chiarizio_j_Page_56thm.jpg
F20101203_AABEOL chiarizio_j_Page_13.tif
7441 F20101203_AABEYF chiarizio_j_Page_15thm.jpg
37576 F20101203_AABETI chiarizio_j_Page_72.jpg
14683 F20101203_AABFAG chiarizio_j_Page_57.QC.jpg
24299 F20101203_AABEOM chiarizio_j_Page_49.QC.jpg
28098 F20101203_AABEYG chiarizio_j_Page_16.QC.jpg
25751 F20101203_AABETJ chiarizio_j_Page_73.jpg
6471 F20101203_AABFAH chiarizio_j_Page_59thm.jpg
F20101203_AABEON chiarizio_j_Page_61.tif
28587 F20101203_AABEYH chiarizio_j_Page_17.QC.jpg
24409 F20101203_AABETK chiarizio_j_Page_74.jpg
26667 F20101203_AABFAI chiarizio_j_Page_60.QC.jpg
513923 F20101203_AABEOO chiarizio_j_Page_82.jp2
7652 F20101203_AABEYI chiarizio_j_Page_17thm.jpg
34046 F20101203_AABETL chiarizio_j_Page_75.jpg
7301 F20101203_AABFAJ chiarizio_j_Page_60thm.jpg
42199 F20101203_AABEOP chiarizio_j_Page_76.jpg
7610 F20101203_AABEYJ chiarizio_j_Page_18thm.jpg
53272 F20101203_AABETM chiarizio_j_Page_78.jpg
7514 F20101203_AABFAK chiarizio_j_Page_61thm.jpg
28705 F20101203_AABEOQ chiarizio_j_Page_66.QC.jpg
27773 F20101203_AABEYK chiarizio_j_Page_19.QC.jpg
32145 F20101203_AABETN chiarizio_j_Page_79.jpg
27848 F20101203_AABFAL chiarizio_j_Page_62.QC.jpg
1819 F20101203_AABEOR chiarizio_j_Page_64thm.jpg
7588 F20101203_AABEYL chiarizio_j_Page_20thm.jpg
42216 F20101203_AABETO chiarizio_j_Page_80.jpg
7592 F20101203_AABFAM chiarizio_j_Page_62thm.jpg
1051965 F20101203_AABEOS chiarizio_j_Page_56.jp2
27478 F20101203_AABEYM chiarizio_j_Page_21.QC.jpg
36527 F20101203_AABETP chiarizio_j_Page_81.jpg
F20101203_AABFAN chiarizio_j_Page_63thm.jpg
5507 F20101203_AABEYN chiarizio_j_Page_22.QC.jpg
41057 F20101203_AABETQ chiarizio_j_Page_82.jpg
26616 F20101203_AABFAO chiarizio_j_Page_67.QC.jpg
26284 F20101203_AABEYO chiarizio_j_Page_23.QC.jpg
80833 F20101203_AABETR chiarizio_j_Page_84.jpg
F20101203_AABEOT chiarizio_j_Page_18.tif
7350 F20101203_AABFAP chiarizio_j_Page_67thm.jpg
7323 F20101203_AABEYP chiarizio_j_Page_23thm.jpg
86426 F20101203_AABETS chiarizio_j_Page_85.jpg
88448 F20101203_AABEOU chiarizio_j_Page_68.jpg
7151 F20101203_AABFAQ chiarizio_j_Page_69thm.jpg
30176 F20101203_AABEYQ chiarizio_j_Page_24.QC.jpg
95807 F20101203_AABETT chiarizio_j_Page_86.jpg
5008 F20101203_AABEOV chiarizio_j_Page_64.QC.jpg
7421 F20101203_AABFAR chiarizio_j_Page_70thm.jpg
13358 F20101203_AABEYR chiarizio_j_Page_25.QC.jpg
54093 F20101203_AABETU chiarizio_j_Page_03.jp2
28873 F20101203_AABEOW chiarizio_j_Page_40.QC.jpg
3992 F20101203_AABFAS chiarizio_j_Page_72thm.jpg
26894 F20101203_AABEYS chiarizio_j_Page_26.QC.jpg
272684 F20101203_AABETV chiarizio_j_Page_04.jp2
F20101203_AABEOX chiarizio_j_Page_67.tif
8373 F20101203_AABFAT chiarizio_j_Page_73.QC.jpg
7294 F20101203_AABEYT chiarizio_j_Page_26thm.jpg
1051908 F20101203_AABETW chiarizio_j_Page_10.jp2
27837 F20101203_AABEMA chiarizio_j_Page_18.QC.jpg
F20101203_AABEOY chiarizio_j_Page_45.jp2
3126 F20101203_AABFAU chiarizio_j_Page_73thm.jpg
28301 F20101203_AABEYU chiarizio_j_Page_27.QC.jpg
1051952 F20101203_AABETX chiarizio_j_Page_11.jp2
83319 F20101203_AABEMB chiarizio_j_Page_56.jpg
3032 F20101203_AABEOZ chiarizio_j_Page_12thm.jpg
7704 F20101203_AABFAV chiarizio_j_Page_74.QC.jpg
7453 F20101203_AABEYV chiarizio_j_Page_27thm.jpg
7909 F20101203_AABEMC chiarizio_j_Page_24thm.jpg
2824 F20101203_AABFAW chiarizio_j_Page_74thm.jpg
27245 F20101203_AABEYW chiarizio_j_Page_29.QC.jpg
27666 F20101203_AABERA chiarizio_j_Page_41.QC.jpg
1051985 F20101203_AABETY chiarizio_j_Page_13.jp2
1051974 F20101203_AABEMD chiarizio_j_Page_05.jp2
3339 F20101203_AABFAX chiarizio_j_Page_75thm.jpg
7591 F20101203_AABEYX chiarizio_j_Page_29thm.jpg
F20101203_AABERB chiarizio_j_Page_22.tif
1051967 F20101203_AABETZ chiarizio_j_Page_14.jp2
F20101203_AABEME chiarizio_j_Page_02.QC.jpg
13091 F20101203_AABFAY chiarizio_j_Page_76.QC.jpg
27376 F20101203_AABEYY chiarizio_j_Page_30.QC.jpg
7298 F20101203_AABERC chiarizio_j_Page_58thm.jpg
86859 F20101203_AABEMF chiarizio_j_Page_10.jpg
4139 F20101203_AABFAZ chiarizio_j_Page_76thm.jpg
7522 F20101203_AABEYZ chiarizio_j_Page_30thm.jpg
7390 F20101203_AABERD chiarizio_j_Page_65thm.jpg
F20101203_AABEMG chiarizio_j_Page_27.tif
F20101203_AABEWA chiarizio_j_Page_23.tif
18397 F20101203_AABERE chiarizio_j_Page_55.QC.jpg
678524 F20101203_AABEMH chiarizio_j_Page_38.jp2
F20101203_AABEWB chiarizio_j_Page_24.tif
1051962 F20101203_AABERF chiarizio_j_Page_61.jp2
F20101203_AABEMI chiarizio_j_Page_03.tif
25265604 F20101203_AABEWC chiarizio_j_Page_25.tif
F20101203_AABERG chiarizio_j_Page_80.tif
13005 F20101203_AABEMJ chiarizio_j_Page_82.QC.jpg
F20101203_AABEWD chiarizio_j_Page_26.tif
26659 F20101203_AABERH chiarizio_j_Page_58.QC.jpg
7527 F20101203_AABEMK chiarizio_j_Page_41thm.jpg
F20101203_AABEWE chiarizio_j_Page_30.tif
8937 F20101203_AABERI chiarizio_j_Page_07.QC.jpg
9227 F20101203_AABEML chiarizio_j_Page_83.QC.jpg
F20101203_AABEWF chiarizio_j_Page_31.tif
398024 F20101203_AABERJ chiarizio_j_Page_88.jp2
F20101203_AABEMM chiarizio_j_Page_24.jp2
F20101203_AABEWG chiarizio_j_Page_32.tif
28626 F20101203_AABERK chiarizio_j_Page_83.jpg
4075 F20101203_AABEMN chiarizio_j_Page_77thm.jpg
F20101203_AABEWH chiarizio_j_Page_34.tif
85837 F20101203_AABERL chiarizio_j_Page_65.jpg
89683 F20101203_AABEMO chiarizio_j_Page_52.jpg
F20101203_AABEWI chiarizio_j_Page_39.tif
F20101203_AABERM chiarizio_j_Page_73.tif
F20101203_AABEMP chiarizio_j_Page_83.tif
F20101203_AABEWJ chiarizio_j_Page_41.tif
22005 F20101203_AABERN chiarizio_j_Page_87.QC.jpg
28539 F20101203_AABEMQ chiarizio_j_Page_52.QC.jpg
F20101203_AABEWK chiarizio_j_Page_42.tif
35176 F20101203_AABERO chiarizio_j_Page_37.jpg
F20101203_AABEWL chiarizio_j_Page_43.tif
86796 F20101203_AABEMR chiarizio_j_Page_18.jpg
F20101203_AABEWM chiarizio_j_Page_45.tif
74902 F20101203_AABERP chiarizio_j_Page_49.jpg
22508 F20101203_AABEMS chiarizio_j_Page_59.QC.jpg
F20101203_AABEWN chiarizio_j_Page_46.tif
88258 F20101203_AABERQ chiarizio_j_Page_33.jpg
1051958 F20101203_AABEMT chiarizio_j_Page_15.jp2
F20101203_AABEWO chiarizio_j_Page_48.tif
1051960 F20101203_AABERR chiarizio_j_Page_65.jp2
7012 F20101203_AABEMU chiarizio_j_Page_36thm.jpg
F20101203_AABEWP chiarizio_j_Page_49.tif
97976 F20101203_AABERS UFE0022322_00001.xml FULL
F20101203_AABEMV chiarizio_j_Page_66.tif
F20101203_AABEWQ chiarizio_j_Page_50.tif
24492 F20101203_AABEMW chiarizio_j_Page_85.QC.jpg
F20101203_AABEWR chiarizio_j_Page_51.tif
7716 F20101203_AABEMX chiarizio_j_Page_11thm.jpg
F20101203_AABEWS chiarizio_j_Page_52.tif
10286 F20101203_AABERV chiarizio_j_Page_02.jpg
7164 F20101203_AABEMY chiarizio_j_Page_32thm.jpg
F20101203_AABEWT chiarizio_j_Page_53.tif
7352 F20101203_AABEMZ chiarizio_j_Page_50thm.jpg
F20101203_AABEWU chiarizio_j_Page_54.tif
25689 F20101203_AABERW chiarizio_j_Page_04.jpg
F20101203_AABEWV chiarizio_j_Page_55.tif
51488 F20101203_AABERX chiarizio_j_Page_06.jpg
F20101203_AABEWW chiarizio_j_Page_60.tif
F20101203_AABEPA chiarizio_j_Page_36.tif
71038 F20101203_AABERY chiarizio_j_Page_08.jpg
F20101203_AABEWX chiarizio_j_Page_63.tif
3902 F20101203_AABEPB chiarizio_j_Page_38thm.jpg
31211 F20101203_AABERZ chiarizio_j_Page_12.jpg
F20101203_AABEWY chiarizio_j_Page_64.tif
267251 F20101203_AABEPC chiarizio_j_Page_01.jp2
1051955 F20101203_AABEUA chiarizio_j_Page_16.jp2
F20101203_AABEWZ chiarizio_j_Page_65.tif
F20101203_AABEPD chiarizio_j_Page_16thm.jpg
1051984 F20101203_AABEUB chiarizio_j_Page_18.jp2
28517 F20101203_AABEPE chiarizio_j_Page_28.QC.jpg
13130 F20101203_AABFBA chiarizio_j_Page_77.QC.jpg
1051919 F20101203_AABEUC chiarizio_j_Page_19.jp2
1051963 F20101203_AABEPF chiarizio_j_Page_85.jp2
15090 F20101203_AABFBB chiarizio_j_Page_78.QC.jpg
1051982 F20101203_AABEUD chiarizio_j_Page_20.jp2
84926 F20101203_AABEPG chiarizio_j_Page_58.jpg
27233 F20101203_AABEZA chiarizio_j_Page_31.QC.jpg
4764 F20101203_AABFBC chiarizio_j_Page_78thm.jpg
153346 F20101203_AABEUE chiarizio_j_Page_22.jp2
29671 F20101203_AABEPH chiarizio_j_Page_02.jp2
7487 F20101203_AABEZB chiarizio_j_Page_31thm.jpg
10620 F20101203_AABFBD chiarizio_j_Page_79.QC.jpg
1051941 F20101203_AABEUF chiarizio_j_Page_23.jp2
F20101203_AABEPI chiarizio_j_Page_08.tif
27304 F20101203_AABEZC chiarizio_j_Page_33.QC.jpg
4771 F20101203_AABFBE chiarizio_j_Page_80thm.jpg
1051942 F20101203_AABEUG chiarizio_j_Page_26.jp2
90916 F20101203_AABEPJ chiarizio_j_Page_28.jpg
7677 F20101203_AABEZD chiarizio_j_Page_33thm.jpg
F20101203_AABEUH chiarizio_j_Page_28.jp2
F20101203_AABEPK chiarizio_j_Page_34.jp2
7917 F20101203_AABEZE chiarizio_j_Page_34thm.jpg
7811 F20101203_AABEKN chiarizio_j_Page_68thm.jpg
11847 F20101203_AABFBF chiarizio_j_Page_81.QC.jpg
1051931 F20101203_AABEUI chiarizio_j_Page_29.jp2
F20101203_AABEPL chiarizio_j_Page_74.tif
27576 F20101203_AABEZF chiarizio_j_Page_35.QC.jpg
5189 F20101203_AABEKO chiarizio_j_Page_05thm.jpg
4360 F20101203_AABFBG chiarizio_j_Page_82thm.jpg
1051973 F20101203_AABEUJ chiarizio_j_Page_30.jp2
F20101203_AABEPM chiarizio_j_Page_29.tif
7477 F20101203_AABEZG chiarizio_j_Page_35thm.jpg
3074 F20101203_AABFBH chiarizio_j_Page_83thm.jpg
F20101203_AABEUK chiarizio_j_Page_31.jp2
F20101203_AABEPN chiarizio_j_Page_33.tif
26006 F20101203_AABEZH chiarizio_j_Page_36.QC.jpg
86759 F20101203_AABEKP chiarizio_j_Page_70.jpg
6921 F20101203_AABFBI chiarizio_j_Page_84thm.jpg
F20101203_AABEPO chiarizio_j_Page_84.jp2
3635 F20101203_AABEZI chiarizio_j_Page_37thm.jpg
F20101203_AABEKQ chiarizio_j_Page_44.tif
F20101203_AABEUL chiarizio_j_Page_32.jp2
6868 F20101203_AABFBJ chiarizio_j_Page_85thm.jpg
90791 F20101203_AABEPP chiarizio_j_Page_17.jpg
11339 F20101203_AABEZJ chiarizio_j_Page_38.QC.jpg
98000 F20101203_AABEKR chiarizio_j_Page_24.jpg
1051953 F20101203_AABEUM chiarizio_j_Page_33.jp2
27184 F20101203_AABFBK chiarizio_j_Page_86.QC.jpg
4547 F20101203_AABEPQ chiarizio_j_Page_57thm.jpg
27726 F20101203_AABEZK chiarizio_j_Page_39.QC.jpg
87144 F20101203_AABEKS chiarizio_j_Page_09.jpg
1051924 F20101203_AABEUN chiarizio_j_Page_35.jp2
7582 F20101203_AABFBL chiarizio_j_Page_86thm.jpg
14334 F20101203_AABEPR chiarizio_j_Page_80.QC.jpg
7532 F20101203_AABEZL chiarizio_j_Page_39thm.jpg
28701 F20101203_AABEKT chiarizio_j_Page_14.QC.jpg
646803 F20101203_AABEUO chiarizio_j_Page_37.jp2
6148 F20101203_AABFBM chiarizio_j_Page_87thm.jpg
F20101203_AABEPS chiarizio_j_Page_59.tif
7740 F20101203_AABEZM chiarizio_j_Page_40thm.jpg
1051886 F20101203_AABEKU chiarizio_j_Page_86.jp2
1051971 F20101203_AABEUP chiarizio_j_Page_39.jp2
10311 F20101203_AABFBN chiarizio_j_Page_88.QC.jpg
23636 F20101203_AABEPT chiarizio_j_Page_84.QC.jpg
27607 F20101203_AABEZN chiarizio_j_Page_42.QC.jpg
7066 F20101203_AABEKV chiarizio_j_Page_21thm.jpg
F20101203_AABEUQ chiarizio_j_Page_40.jp2
3189 F20101203_AABFBO chiarizio_j_Page_88thm.jpg
7473 F20101203_AABEZO chiarizio_j_Page_42thm.jpg
27389 F20101203_AABEKW chiarizio_j_Page_70.QC.jpg
1051957 F20101203_AABEUR chiarizio_j_Page_41.jp2
67448 F20101203_AABFBP UFE0022322_00001.mets
26635 F20101203_AABEPU chiarizio_j_Page_50.QC.jpg
7383 F20101203_AABEZP chiarizio_j_Page_43thm.jpg
F20101203_AABEKX chiarizio_j_Page_67.jp2
1051966 F20101203_AABEUS chiarizio_j_Page_42.jp2
27329 F20101203_AABEPV chiarizio_j_Page_10.QC.jpg
27127 F20101203_AABEZQ chiarizio_j_Page_44.QC.jpg
F20101203_AABEKY chiarizio_j_Page_38.tif
1051961 F20101203_AABEUT chiarizio_j_Page_43.jp2
13955 F20101203_AABEPW chiarizio_j_Page_06.QC.jpg
7304 F20101203_AABEZR chiarizio_j_Page_44thm.jpg
33658 F20101203_AABEKZ chiarizio_j_Page_88.jpg
1051980 F20101203_AABEUU chiarizio_j_Page_44.jp2
386150 F20101203_AABEPX chiarizio_j_Page_79.jp2
26234 F20101203_AABEZS chiarizio_j_Page_45.QC.jpg
F20101203_AABEUV chiarizio_j_Page_46.jp2
1051972 F20101203_AABEPY chiarizio_j_Page_50.jp2
7143 F20101203_AABEZT chiarizio_j_Page_45thm.jpg
1051976 F20101203_AABEUW chiarizio_j_Page_49.jp2
242197 F20101203_AABENA chiarizio_j_Page_73.jp2
F20101203_AABEPZ chiarizio_j_Page_37.tif
26009 F20101203_AABEZU chiarizio_j_Page_46.QC.jpg
F20101203_AABEUX chiarizio_j_Page_52.jp2
1051946 F20101203_AABENB chiarizio_j_Page_09.jp2
6952 F20101203_AABEZV chiarizio_j_Page_46thm.jpg
778533 F20101203_AABEUY chiarizio_j_Page_55.jp2
1051983 F20101203_AABENC chiarizio_j_Page_47.jp2
27240 F20101203_AABEZW chiarizio_j_Page_47.QC.jpg
84793 F20101203_AABESA chiarizio_j_Page_13.jpg
F20101203_AABEND chiarizio_j_Page_66thm.jpg
7494 F20101203_AABEZX chiarizio_j_Page_47thm.jpg
86191 F20101203_AABESB chiarizio_j_Page_19.jpg
941538 F20101203_AABEUZ chiarizio_j_Page_57.jp2
87894 F20101203_AABENE chiarizio_j_Page_27.jpg
25278 F20101203_AABEZY chiarizio_j_Page_48.QC.jpg
89265 F20101203_AABESC chiarizio_j_Page_20.jpg
F20101203_AABENF chiarizio_j_Page_40.tif
7269 F20101203_AABEZZ chiarizio_j_Page_48thm.jpg
F20101203_AABEXA chiarizio_j_Page_69.tif
85867 F20101203_AABESD chiarizio_j_Page_21.jpg
F20101203_AABENG chiarizio_j_Page_51.jp2
F20101203_AABEXB chiarizio_j_Page_71.tif
17216 F20101203_AABESE chiarizio_j_Page_22.jpg
4151 F20101203_AABENH chiarizio_j_Page_81thm.jpg
F20101203_AABEXC chiarizio_j_Page_72.tif
83034 F20101203_AABESF chiarizio_j_Page_23.jpg
F20101203_AABENI chiarizio_j_Page_35.tif
F20101203_AABEXD chiarizio_j_Page_75.tif
43679 F20101203_AABESG chiarizio_j_Page_25.jpg
1051949 F20101203_AABENJ chiarizio_j_Page_27.jp2
F20101203_AABEXE chiarizio_j_Page_76.tif
86233 F20101203_AABESH chiarizio_j_Page_26.jpg
28258 F20101203_AABENK chiarizio_j_Page_68.QC.jpg
F20101203_AABEXF chiarizio_j_Page_77.tif
87135 F20101203_AABESI chiarizio_j_Page_29.jpg
1051923 F20101203_AABENL chiarizio_j_Page_21.jp2
F20101203_AABEXG chiarizio_j_Page_78.tif
85911 F20101203_AABESJ chiarizio_j_Page_30.jpg
7402 F20101203_AABENM chiarizio_j_Page_54thm.jpg
86554 F20101203_AABESK chiarizio_j_Page_31.jpg
6647 F20101203_AABENN chiarizio_j_Page_49thm.jpg
F20101203_AABEXH chiarizio_j_Page_81.tif
92505 F20101203_AABESL chiarizio_j_Page_34.jpg
F20101203_AABENO chiarizio_j_Page_54.jp2
F20101203_AABEXI chiarizio_j_Page_82.tif
87673 F20101203_AABESM chiarizio_j_Page_35.jpg
90069 F20101203_AABENP chiarizio_j_Page_61.jpg
F20101203_AABEXJ chiarizio_j_Page_84.tif
82309 F20101203_AABESN chiarizio_j_Page_36.jpg
F20101203_AABENQ chiarizio_j_Page_53.jp2
F20101203_AABEXK chiarizio_j_Page_85.tif
35167 F20101203_AABESO chiarizio_j_Page_38.jpg
F20101203_AABENR chiarizio_j_Page_21.tif
F20101203_AABEXL chiarizio_j_Page_88.tif
90885 F20101203_AABESP chiarizio_j_Page_40.jpg
294221 F20101203_AABEXM chiarizio_j.pdf
85849 F20101203_AABESQ chiarizio_j_Page_41.jpg
1051968 F20101203_AABENS chiarizio_j_Page_17.jp2
2441 F20101203_AABEXN chiarizio_j_Page_01thm.jpg
85836 F20101203_AABESR chiarizio_j_Page_42.jpg
F20101203_AABENT chiarizio_j_Page_56.tif
7943 F20101203_AABEXO chiarizio_j_Page_01.QC.jpg
87076 F20101203_AABESS chiarizio_j_Page_43.jpg
90181 F20101203_AABENU chiarizio_j_Page_14.jpg
1346 F20101203_AABEXP chiarizio_j_Page_02thm.jpg
86125 F20101203_AABEST chiarizio_j_Page_44.jpg
81640 F20101203_AABENV chiarizio_j_Page_48.jpg
3546 F20101203_AABEXQ chiarizio_j_Page_03.QC.jpg
82628 F20101203_AABESU chiarizio_j_Page_45.jpg
F20101203_AABENW chiarizio_j_Page_01.tif
8011 F20101203_AABEXR chiarizio_j_Page_04.QC.jpg
87413 F20101203_AABESV chiarizio_j_Page_47.jpg
F20101203_AABENX chiarizio_j_Page_17.tif
20983 F20101203_AABEXS chiarizio_j_Page_05.QC.jpg
91037 F20101203_AABESW chiarizio_j_Page_51.jpg
F20101203_AABELA chiarizio_j_Page_79.tif
F20101203_AABENY chiarizio_j_Page_28.tif
3722 F20101203_AABEXT chiarizio_j_Page_06thm.jpg
5881 F20101203_AABELB chiarizio_j_Page_71thm.jpg
88973 F20101203_AABENZ chiarizio_j_Page_16.jpg
2706 F20101203_AABEXU chiarizio_j_Page_07thm.jpg
82799 F20101203_AABESX chiarizio_j_Page_54.jpg
F20101203_AABELC chiarizio_j_Page_62.tif
21647 F20101203_AABEXV chiarizio_j_Page_08.QC.jpg
57620 F20101203_AABESY chiarizio_j_Page_55.jpg
26397 F20101203_AABELD chiarizio_j_Page_69.QC.jpg
5921 F20101203_AABEXW chiarizio_j_Page_08thm.jpg
987935 F20101203_AABEQA chiarizio_j_Page_59.jp2
75683 F20101203_AABESZ chiarizio_j_Page_59.jpg
363227 F20101203_AABELE chiarizio_j_Page_12.jp2
27621 F20101203_AABEXX chiarizio_j_Page_09.QC.jpg
2554 F20101203_AABEQB chiarizio_j_Page_04thm.jpg
7504 F20101203_AABELF chiarizio_j_Page_09thm.jpg
7575 F20101203_AABEXY chiarizio_j_Page_10thm.jpg
89089 F20101203_AABEQC chiarizio_j_Page_11.jpg
F20101203_AABELG chiarizio_j_Page_57.tif
F20101203_AABEVA chiarizio_j_Page_60.jp2
28616 F20101203_AABEXZ chiarizio_j_Page_11.QC.jpg
F20101203_AABEQD chiarizio_j_Page_09.tif
10826 F20101203_AABELH chiarizio_j_Page_75.QC.jpg
F20101203_AABEVB chiarizio_j_Page_63.jp2
F20101203_AABEQE chiarizio_j_Page_47.tif