The Resource Public Support for Rehabilitation in Ohio, 1996

Public Support for Rehabilitation in Ohio, 1996

Label
Public Support for Rehabilitation in Ohio, 1996
Title
Public Support for Rehabilitation in Ohio, 1996
Creator
Author
Contributor
Subject
Genre
Summary
The main focus of this research was on identifying the conditions under which public support for rehabilitation varies. A single, multivariate analysis method was used so that the influence of each respondent, criminal, crime, and treatment characterististic could be determined within the context of all other factors. The research also explored differences between global and specific attitudes toward rehabilitation. Data for this study were collected through a mail survey of 1,000 Ohio residents (Part 1). The initial mailing was sent to all 1,000 members of the sample on May 28, 1996. Several followups were conducted, and data collection efforts ended on August 26, 1996. Questionnaire items elicited demographic, experiential, and attitudinal information from each respondent. To assess the potential influence of offender, offense, and treatment characteristics on the respondent's support for rehabilitation, several variables were combined to create a factorial vignette. This method allowed the independent effects of each factor on support for rehabilitation to be determined. The respondents were asked to express their agreement or disagreement with five statements following the vignette: (1) general support for rehabilitation, (2) effectiveness of intervention, (3) basing release decisions on progress in rehabilitation programs, (4) individualizing sentences to fit treatment needs, and (5) expanding treatment opportunities for offenders. Types of offenses included in the vignettes were robbery, burglary, aggravated assault, larceny, motor vehicle theft, fraud, drug sales, and drug use. These offenses were selected since they are well-known to the public, offenders are arrested for these offenses fairly frequently, and the offenses are potentially punishable by a sentence of either prison or probation. Several attributes within the particular offenses in the vignettes were designed to assess the influence of different levels of harm, either financial or physical. Offender characteristics and offense selection for use in the vignettes were weighted by their frequency of arrests as reported in the Federal Bureau of Investigation's 1995 Uniform Crime Report data. A rating of the seriousness of each offense was assigned using a separate survey of 118 undergraduate university students (Part 2), and the resulting seriousness score was used in the analysis of the vignettes. Additional items on the mail survey instrument assessed the respondent's global and specific attitudes toward treatment. Independent variables from the mail survey include the respondent's age, education, income category, sex, race, political party, rating of political conservativism, personal contact with offenders, religious identity salience, religiosity, attitudes toward biblical literalness and religious forgiveness, fear of crime, and victimization. Variables from the vignettes examined whether support for rehabilitation was influenced by offender age, race, sex, type of offense committed, employment status, substance use, prior record, sentence, and treatment program. Global support for rehabilitation was measured by responses to two questions: what the respondent thought the main emphasis in most prisons was (to punish, to rehabilitate, to protect society), and what the main emphasis should be. Items assessed variations in the respondent's attitudes toward rehabilitation by offender's age, sex, and prior record, location of treatment, and the type of treatment provided. Variables from the crime seriousness survey recorded the respondent's rating of various crime events, including assault and robbery (with or without a weapon, with varying degrees of injury, or no injury to the victim), burglary, larceny, and auto theft (with varying values of the property stolen), drug dealing, drug use, and writing bad checks
http://library.link/vocab/creatorName
  • Applegate, Brandon K
  • Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]
Label
Public Support for Rehabilitation in Ohio, 1996
Instantiates
Publication
Note
  • 1996-05-28--1996-08-26
  • 2543
Control code
ICPSR02543.v1
Governing access note
Access restricted to subscribing institutions
Label
Public Support for Rehabilitation in Ohio, 1996
Publication
Note
  • 1996-05-28--1996-08-26
  • 2543
Control code
ICPSR02543.v1
Governing access note
Access restricted to subscribing institutions

Library Locations

    • Bowdoin College LibraryBorrow it
      3000 College Station, Brunswick, ME, 04011-8421, US
      43.907093 -69.963997
Processing Feedback ...