Expanding Clear et al.'s Value of Religion Ideas

Former Inmates’ Perspectives

Bibliographic Data

ID11275643
AuthorsSaskia Daniele Santos (0000-0002-2874-3223), Jodi Lane (0000-0001-8589-2252, University of Florida)
Year2014
Volume35
Issue2
Pages116-132
Publication date2014-02-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenueDeviant Behavior (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0163-9625 • E-ISSN: 1521-0456
PublisherInforma UK Limited (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1080/01639625.2013.834746
OpenAlexW2051698976
LanguageEN
Citations received4
References cited24

Clear et al. (2000) examined the value of religion in prisons and identified intrinsic and extrinsic meanings for inmates turning to religion. This research expanded Clear et al.'s work by using self-report data from former inmates regarding ideas developed in the prior qualitative study, as well as included new items that may further clarify the role of religion in prison. Using descriptive statistics and other analyses, limited support was found for Clear et al.'s (Citation2000) findings. Acknowledgments The authors thank the half-way house and transitional programming administrators and study respondents for their participation in this research. The authors also thank Jessica Chiarizio for her assistance in this project. Notes 1In a previous article, Clear et al. (Citation1992) discussed these concepts as ways that religion may help inmates improve adjustment to being incarcerated. The concepts were classified into ways of dealing with the emotional strains of incarceration and ways of dealing with the deprivations of the prison environment. The three ways of dealing with the emotional strains were dealing with guilt, finding a new way of life and dealing with the loss, especially of freedom, which were classified as intrinsic orientations in the Citation2000 publication. They listed three ways in which inmates dealing with the deprivations of prison: safety, material comforts, and access to outsiders. In additions to inmate relations, these three ways were listed as extrinsic orientations in the later article. Percentage of clients is based on the amount of clients who met study criteria but did not participate. 2Two groups did not participate in a focus group but agreed to complete the survey. In the case of Group 5, participants reported being too tired to participate in a focus group without receiving financial compensation for participating. The researchers were unable to conduct focus groups with Group 9 because the location did not offer enough privacy to conduct focus groups. 3Seventy-one former inmates were actually sampled, but due to researcher error one of the participant's surveys was destroyed prior to the data being entered. 4 T-tests of independent samples revealed the only demographic differences between ex-prison participants and ex-jail-only participants that were statistically significant were age (t = 7.575, p < .001), time served (t = 7.944, p < .001), time since release (t = 2.098, p < .05), and having religious preference (t = 2.318, p < .05). Specifically, ex-prison participants were older, had served more time (about six years), had been released for a longer period of time (about nine months), and were more likely to indicate no religious preference (see Table 2). 5A t-test of independent samples revealed there was no statistically significant difference between the mean of ex-prison participants and ex-jail-only participants on the importance of religion prior and during incarceration. There was a statistically significant difference between the mean of ex-prison participants and ex-jail-only participants (t = 3.42, p < .01) on the importance of religion following incarceration, with ex-prison participants more likely to report religion was important. 6 T-tests indicated no statistically significant differences between the mean scores for ex-prison participant and ex-jail-only participants for any of the intrinsic reasons. 7Due to researcher oversight, Clear et al.'s (Citation2000) fourth extrinsic motivation, material comforts, was not included in the survey. 8Ex-jail-only participants were instructed to answer questions based on their jail experiences. 9 T-tests showed that there were no significant differences between former prison and jail-only participants for any of the Clear et al. (Citation2000) inspired items or newly added extrinsic reasons. Additional informationNotes on contributorsSaskia Daniele Santos SASKIA DANIELE SANTOS is a Research and Evaluation Analyst for the South Carolina Department of Probation, Parole and Pardon Services. She earned her Ph.D. at the University of Florida. Her research interests include corrections, community corrections, and survey research and design. Her publications have appeared in International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology and American Journal of Criminal Justice. Jodi Lane JODI LANE is a Professor in the Department of Sociology and Criminology & Law at the University of Florida. Her interests include corrections, juvenile justice policy, program evaluation, and fear of crime. She has published in an array of journals, including Deviant Behavior, Justice Quarterly, Criminal Justice & Behavior, and Crime & Delinquency

Criminology · Political science · Sociology · Statistics · Value (mathematics · Criminal Justice and Corrections Analysis · Marriage and Sexual Relationships · Mathematics · Psychology · Religion, Spirituality, and Psychology · Social Psychology

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub