Unlocking Meanings and Processing Trauma: Developing a Good Sense of Self through GRIP
Joanna Ho (#12051004) - August 14, 2019 - Master Thesis University of Amsterdam - GSSS: Social Problems and Social Policy
Table of Contents
Summary 4
Chapter 1 - Introduction 5
Chapter 2 - Theoretical Framework 9
2.1 Berger and Luckmann’s Social Construction of Reality 10
2.2 Goffman’s “Spoiled Identity” and Labeling Theory 11
2.3 Maruna’s Desistance: Condemnation and Redemption Scripts 14
Chapter 3 - Methodology 15
3.1 Research Design 15
3.2 Triangulation: A 3-Way Check for Consistency 16
3.3 GRIP Course Manual 17
3.4 Survey: Checking for Consistency 17
3.5 Interviewers 18
3.6 Transcription Codes 19
3.7 Transcription Memos 19
3.8 Photo Elicitation Activity: Methods and Background 19
3.9 Intercoder Reliability and Coding Team 21
Chapter 4 - Non-Participant Observation of Changes 23
Chapter 5 - Program Suitability: Who Should Get a GRIP? 25
5.1 Feeling Unwelcome 27
Ingrained Racism 27
Sex Offenders as Prison’s Underclass 28
Chapter 6 - Condemnation Scripts 29
6.1 Rehabilitation Inauthenticity 30
Overcoming Initial Reservations and Inauthenticity 32
6.2 Traditional Views of Masculinity 33
Chapter 7 - Redemption Scripts 35
7.1 Peacemakers: The Desire to Do Good and Give Back 36
Influence of Co-Facilitators 38
7.2 Generativity: Concern for the Next Generation 39
7.4 Understanding Victim Impact 40
Chapter 8 - Developing Emotional Intelligence and Mindfulness 41
8.1 Processing Emotions of Trauma and Violence 42
Chapter 9 - Tribe Camaraderie and Accountability 47
9.1 Tribal Bond and Trust 47
Rebuilding Trust 49
9.2 Accountability 50
Chapter 10: Survey Question Results 51
Chapter 11 - Photo Elicitation Activity Results 52
Chapter 12 - Conclusion 56
12.1 Discussion 57
12.2 Limitations 58
12.3 Ethics and Positionality 60
Work Cited 60
Appendix A: Code List 66
Appendix B: Standard Interview Questions (GRIP Participant) 67
Appendix C: Standard Interview Questions (Non-Participant) 67
Summary
Guiding Rage Into Power, or GRIP, is an offender accountability and rehabilitation program in five California prisons. This comprehensive year-long program aims to stop violent behavior, foster
mindfulness, develop emotional intelligence, and understand victim impact. The program hopes to help participants understand the origins of their violence and develop tools to manage impulses by recognizing anger and bodily sensations and then learning to release these emotions in non-destructive ways (Insight-Out GRIP Course Manual, 2018). By addressing these deeply rooted issues, the program guides the offenders to heal, readying them to serve others as productive members of society. This in-depth process revolves around a tribe, a group of men that learn to rely on each other and hold themselves accountable for their recovery. Inmate facilitators are graduates of the program and they serve as role models, helping to lead the program with external facilitators.
The goal of this research is to obtain a better understanding of the perceptions of GRIP graduates of their claims of progression of negative to more positive narratives and identities. Their claims of changing narratives from condemnation to redemptive scripts, concepts that will be introduced later, are essential to understanding the perception of success of the GRIP students and graduates. I was fortunate enough to work with a valuable set of transcripts of interviews conducted in two California State Prisons. Semi-structured interviews with both GRIP participants and non-participants constitute the majority of the study, and the addition of the GRIP course manual, survey and photo elicitation activity helped to provide a check for consistency. A team of researchers worked together to collect, process, and analyze the data. Along with a partner, we coded 67 transcripts in total with ATLAS.ti.
The following is our main research question: What do participants claim about the effects of GRIP, either for themselves or for others in the program? This research question will be answered with the help of the following subquestions: What do inmates in two California prisons say about how GRIP has impacted participants? What do participants say about how these effects of the program are realized? What do non-participants report about changes they have seen in GRIP participants for whom they claim to have relevant observations?
The program aims to teach emotional literacy by learning to recognize body sensations that accompany the participant’s emotions in moments of imminent danger of violence and also in the normalcy of daily life. One of the goals of the program is to heal unprocessed pain. It investigates one of the premises of the course, “hurt people hurt people; healed people heal people” (Insight Out GRIP Course Manual, 2018: 14).
Chapter 1 - Introduction
The United States has the largest prison population in the world with a staggering 2.2 million imprisoned and the highest incarceration rate at 440 per 100,000 (Bronson & Carson, 2019). The extensive prison system houses violent and serious offenders and a majority of them will eventually be released from
prison. According to the National Reentry Resource Center (NRRC, n.d.), at least 95 percent of people incarcerated in state prisons will be released back to their communities at some point, indicating that there should be an increased focus on rehabilitation programs to protect the public from further harm. The current national debate on the criminal justice system involves the issue of recidivism, but a more pressing issue involves the men returning to vulnerable families and neighborhoods and potentially causing physical or emotional harm without getting caught (Polashek, Wilson, Townsend, & Daly, 2005). Polashek et al. (2005) suggested that a comprehensive, high-intensity cognitive-behavioral program for high-risk offenders shows promise, particularly in reducing subsequent violent offending. Rehabilitating individuals could have far-reaching implications by addressing some of the root causes of violence and thus protecting the communities and preventing inter-generational cycles of trauma. For those that have been affected, the GRIP program hopes to utilize past experiences with violence and crime and transform the offenders to become peacemakers.
While the criminal justice system has been very successful with tough on crime policies by incarcerating offenders at a high rate, according to a recent report by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, or CDCR, California has largely failed to rehabilitate and reintegrate released prisoners into the community (CDCR, 2019). The country’s attitude towards crime and
punishment in the last decade has moved towards more rehabilitative policies, with even some of the most conservative politicians realizing that the previous philosophy of lengthy prison terms and limited
rehabilitation opportunities as fiscally, if not morally and even socially, irresponsible (Gingrich, 2015). Another root cause of crime is the problematic phenomenon of sending untreated trauma victims from some of the poorest neighborhoods in the USA to prison, a place for further trauma and harm. This cyclical process may actually make impoverished communities less safe by destabilizing the
neighborhoods (Day, Casey, & Wilson, 2010). Poverty, violence, and drug abuse can cripple a community and lengthy prison sentences lead to absent father figures, forcing their children to grow up in
environments where such phenomenon are expected to continue for the next generation. According to Roach (2013), the vast majority of men serving time for violent crimes in American prisons were exposed to traumatically violent events as children and may repeatedly find themselves dealing with other highly stressful situations in violent gangs, communities, or prisons.
According to Danielle Sered, a key issue in criminal justice reform is a lack of addressing restoring relationships between offender, victim, and their community. She argues that the four core drivers of violence and imprisonment are shame, isolation, exposure to violence, and an inability to meet one’s economic needs (Sered, 2019). Unless these issues are addressed, mass incarceration and violence will continue to be a problematic component of American society. She argues that imprisonment is not in the interest for those harmed in the neighborhood because it does not solve the underlying problems. Imprisoned individuals return to their communities with anger and resentment, and unless their
calls for restorative justice because it aims to repair relationships between offenders and victims, tending to the broken bonds of affected communities. There are numerous rehabilitation programs available and it is clear that a comprehensive one that addresses various components, such as violence and dedication to restoring peace to communities, is necessary.
Guiding Rage Into Power is an intensive program with four main goals: stopping and
transforming violence, promoting emotional intelligence, fostering mindfulness, and understanding victim impact (Insight-Out, n.d.). Developing a strong meditation practice, a sense of accountability, and
reflections of past trauma are also core goals of the program. Similar to Sered’s Common Justice
Program, GRIP emphasizes reflection on values, beliefs, experiences, and expectations that led the men to their deviance. GRIP hopes to accomplish these goals by establishing a “tribe,” a group of men that works together with the aim to process their trauma and develop healthier ways to deal with their anger and violence. Trauma treatment is becoming an increasingly popular alternative in rehabilitation and could be a key factor in ending mass incarceration and violence (Day, Gerace, Wilson, & Howells, 2008).
Preliminary studies suggest that offenders in negative emotional states are more likely to reoffend (Day, 2009), implying that emotion regulation could greatly improve the chances of recovery. According to Day et al. (2008), there is a demand to provide alternative rehabilitation models that scrutinize the relationship between clinical practice and the wider social and political context by considering both human and criminogenic needs. Rehabilitation to better the individual towards more positive identities and treatment for deviant behavior has become popular amongst self-help programming.
The demographics of GRIP are notable because many participants tend to be older. Many rehabilitation programs focus on a younger demographic usually due to recidivism concerns. The older demographic is also particularly notable because that typically includes men who have served long sentences for serious or violent crimes. Different prison levels also contribute to aging demographics. It may take inmates many years to move from level 4 prisons, which are the maximum-security ones, to level 3 and then to level 2, moving from different levels due to various stipulations such as good behavior or a lowered risk. GRIP is currently available on level 2 prisons, so naturally that means that people at level 2 prisons tend to be older. Some of these potential students may simply hope to gain leniency from the parole board, but others may be signing up with a real motivation to change. GRIP does not have a formal policy on age, but according to the inmates, the program has a reputation for being difficult because it requires participants to openly discuss personal stories and open up about their vulnerabilities, a claim evident in numerous interviews. This could discourage many from signing up for the program and yet according to the respondents, hundreds of people are on the waiting lists.
California voters overwhelmingly passed Proposition 57 in 2016 intending to enhance public safety by emphasizing rehabilitation in prisons (CDCR “Proposition 57 FAQ," n.d.). The proposition allows inmates, except for those serving Life Without Parole or on capital punishment, an opportunity to earn up to 12 weeks off their sentence per year by completing rehabilitation programs that qualify as
“Milestones” (Mallick, 2018). This incentive made rehabilitation programs more attractive, and some interviewees seem to imply that this could be a reason for the sharp increase in sign-ups for GRIP.
The complexity of trauma histories and the resulting needs of older adults in prison pose a significant public health issue that, if left untreated, may lead to more trauma and victimization for themselves and their communities (Courtney & Maschi, 2012). According to Courtney and Maschi (2012), up to 70 percent of inmates report at least one instance of a traumatic or stressful event and on average report higher degrees of distress about being a victim. This emphasizes the importance of trauma treatment, particularly for older demographics, not only for the individuals themselves but for the
betterment of their communities upon release. Maschi, Viola, Morgen, and Koskinen (2015) found that the lifetime experiences of trauma, stress, grief, separation and loss are common amongst older men in prison, supporting the implementation of multidimensional coping strategies that address physical, cognitive, emotional, social and spiritual domains as intervention techniques. These techniques are not only similar to Sered’s rehabilitative suggestions but also align with GRIP philosophy.
Studying both participants and non-participants will help provide insight into the program. A group of four interviewers conducted 89 interviews of both groups in two California prisons. The respondents participated in a survey and a semi-structured, open-ended interview with a photo elicitation activity. The data was then transcribed by one individual, who prepared the data to be coded and further analyzed. Since I worked with a small team, I was fortunate enough to receive transcribed interviews with survey data already compiled in a spreadsheet. The majority of my research period was spent on coding the detailed transcripts and organizing the collected data. A total of 89 interviews were conducted, and 67 of them were analyzed for this study. I coded 58 interviews and my partner coded 9 interviews. The other interviews were not included and this selection will be explained in the methods section.
The GRIP Course Manual outlines, in detail, the program’s aims, techniques, and philosophy. This document is useful to understand the framing of the program and it is clear that GRIP has been tailored and curated well for their particular demographic, which are deviant individuals that are determined to process their trauma and become peacemakers. The manual begins with a brief foreword establishing the underlying message of the program as it attempts to go far beyond simply attempting to fix the revolving door of crime, but to become a comprehensive and transformative approach that reaches deep into the hidden traumas of the abused and abusers. This course manual was a very useful tool in providing context to the transcripts because it helped explain program vocabulary and activities that the inmates used.
The transcriptions are the most relevant part of the triangulation check for consistency because they are full of insightful and seemingly honest interviews. ATLAS.ti was essential in the coding process to organize the many quotes into broader themes. Both deductive and inductive techniques were utilized to allow for the open development of themes and theories. In terms of inductive methods, I used
observing themes and attributes from the interviews. This process led to the formation of new concepts and theories that I had not anticipated. I also used deductive methods by developing my thesis with existing theoretical research and concepts and coding the interviews with these in mind.
The survey results are the second part of the 3-way check for consistency technique. The survey results reflect a more standardized approach than the open-ended interviews because there is little room for flexibility when choosing answers on a scale. The survey includes questions about GRIP, self-esteem, impulsivity, and trustworthiness and this was useful when comparing participants and non-participants from the two different prisons. The photo elicitation activity is the final component for the check for consistency and it is conducted at the end of the interviews. GRIP participants are asked to select two photos, one photo to reflect how they felt prior to the GRIP program, and the other photo for how they feel at the moment, which was towards the end of the program. The interviews were conducted towards the end of the program, rather than after the completion of the course. Non-participants were asked to choose before and after photos regarding the GRIP participants that they were familiar. The photos are predetermined as positive, negative, or ambiguous and this activity should reflect narrative changes over time (“Media Core,” n.d.; Loewenthal et al., 2016; Gariglio, 2016). This triangulation check for
consistency was particularly useful because the initial data seemed to suggest overwhelmingly positive feedback of the GRIP program from both non-participants and participants. A more in-depth analysis of the program is necessary to provide some answers for these positive findings.
The following research questions seek to provide more understanding of the GRIP program and to study how the participants say the program has impacted their narratives and identities. To achieve that aim, the following questions will be answered:
What do participants claim about the effects of GRIP, either for themselves or for others in the program?
The main research question will be answered with the help of the following subquestions:
1. What do inmates say about how GRIP has impacted participants?
2. What do participants say about how these effects of the program are realized?
3. What do non-participants report about changes they have seen in GRIP participants for whom they claim to have relevant observations?
Chapter 2 - Theoretical Framework
The following theoretical framework is the foundation of this research on GRIP participants and non-participants and their claims of changes due to the GRIP program. A combination of both theoretical and empirical components is essential to understanding the personal struggles of the offenders and how they claim to have improved or overcome their previous hardships by succeeding in the program. Berger and Luckmann, Goffman, and Maruna are the core of the sociological theory behind this research. Berger and Luckmann’s social construction of reality suggests that reality is created with repeated interactions that institutionalizes social behavior into an unquestioned standard. Goffman’s theory of “Spoiled Identity” discusses the power of stigma and its effect on identity and self-worth. Maruna’s concept of desistance through the progression of condemnation to redemption scripts suggests that offenders alter their narratives to resist criminality.
The three theories complement each other through their applicability towards understanding criminal behavior. Berger and Luckmann’s theory has broader uses than the others, but is useful when trying to understand deviant behavior. For example, reducing violence and aggression was an important goal for the GRIP program, and one way to understand the lives of those that repeatedly engaging in violent behavior is to understand their concept of acceptable social norms. While they may justify their actions, shame and guilt may develop once they face their punishment. Here, Goffman’s concept of reverting to an unspoiled identity is important for deviant individuals as they seek to address their problems or relieve themselves of the guilt. Maruna’s theory of desistance discusses the factors that may encourage previously deviant offenders to resist the temptation to reoffend. Once the offenders learn to desist from crime, Goffman would argue that they have returned to an unspoiled identity. These theories helped me understand the complexity and richness of the transcripts by breaking down broad concepts into digestible and clear examples.
2.1 Berger and Luckmann’s Social Construction of Reality
Berger and Luckmann’s core argument suggests that individuals create reality through habitualization of actions or behaviors because the repeated actions are consistent, developing an environment that
encourages a predictable and expected reality. The repeated actions become habitualized over time, which leads to institutionalization because the social behavior becomes a mutually shared agreement of
acceptable conduct. As individuals interact, they participate in social reality, a reality that is made meaningful to everyone involved, and this process is explained by legitimation. Legitimation reproduces and integrates the meanings that are attached to institutions. The need for legitimation occurs whenever the institutional order has to be transmitted to a new generation of individuals, becoming the objective reality. Berger and Luckmann’s theory could also be useful when attempting to understand traditional views that align with condemnation scripts. For example, if an individual grows up in a troubled neighborhood where violence and domestic violence is a regular occurrence, it is likely for the behavior
to be an acceptable perspective of reality. It is understandably difficult to remove these perspectives from their expectations and habits, and some aggressive intervention may be necessary for change.
This relational and interactional perspective thus could suggest rehabilitation programming as a social phenomenon, implying that the individual desires to improve themselves might be dependent on external interactions and expectations. For example, GRIP encourages the development of positive habits and mindfulness in their lessons, and these patterns of meditation, reflection, and coping mechanisms become institutionalized as their reality. The students are expected to practice regularly, especially since the lessons are held once a month rather than once a week. Due to this infrequent schedule, students must show some initiative in their studies, and according to the transcripts, many participated in small group studies. However, this can be viewed as a socially constructed reality because the entire program was developed for the sole purpose of it to be followed consistently in order for the tools and philosophies to bring desistance from deviance. The GRIP participants may not recognize their changed narrative as socially developed by the program or group dynamic but rather as individual progress and success. Students with this perspective of self-development could take GRIP for granted by ignoring the
importance of the group dynamic. The safety of a group dynamic creates a social environment where the participants can rely on each other to reproduce new acceptable perspectives and behavior. The GRIP program is dependent on the power of the tribe, whose name is dependent on the collective number of years of imprisonment, and this title helps solidify their bond.
Their conception of reality was particularly interesting when studying students that participated in the program without authentic desire for change. It is possible that students joined with false pretenses, likely because their perspectives were crystallized with different concepts of reality. Once faced with very opposing views, they are forced to address this difference by either rejecting it or accepting it. If the new perspectives are accepted, then their ideas of reality change as well, redeveloping a new outlook and institutionalizing a new unspoiled identity.
2.2 Goffman’s “Spoiled Identity” and Labeling Theory
Stigma develops when an individual is labeled as a deviant, and Goffman discussed how stigmatized people deal with their “spoiled identities.” Goffman defines stigma as ``an attribute that is deeply discrediting” that reduces the bearer “from a whole and usual person to a tainted, discounted
one” (Goffman, 1968: 3). With this definition, stigma can be immediately identifiable, such as with skin color, or hidden stigma which is discrediting only if uncovered, and might be the case with a criminal record or mental illness. Such stigmatized individuals may begin to adjust their behavior, and some may ultimately embrace their newly realized identities with a sense of failure and shame.
Research has consistently found that stigma negatively affects physical well-being, mental health, and self-esteem (Corrigan, Larson, & Rusch, 2009). Goffman (1968: 11) described a total institution as “a place of residence and work where a large number of like-situated individuals are cut off from the wider
society for a period of time together and lead an enclosed, formally administered round of life.” Goffman focused on hidden stigma, and he suggested that the contours of a moral career vary depending on when an individual learns of his or her stigma (Shaw, 1991). The concept of moral career can be understood as the labeling process in which a person’s identity, typically deviant, and moral status is progressively changed through a reinterpretation of imposed moral evaluations through programming (Goffman, 1968). Especially in “total institutions” (Goffman, 1968) like prisons, social interactions and perceptions can powerfully shape the type of person a stigmatized individual is likely to become because they are faced with a pressing need to address their stigma. According to Goffman (1961), life in an institution radically shifts one’s moral career, a career that reflects changes in beliefs concerning themselves and their
significant others. Goffman argued that the adjustment of a new identity is particularly problematic for those restricted to institutions because imprisonment strips away social interactions and expectations that the individual was accustomed to on the outside. The “stripping process through mortification of the self” removes all personal identity through standardized inmate numbers and uniform, restricts or disconnects familial relationships, and thus develops a stigmatized status (Goffman, 1961: 317). In GRIP, they
identify themselves with their tribe name, and this is their new stigma, but recreated in a positive manner. By creating physical restrictions with the outside world, offenders are involuntarily forced to realign their moral career with the presented reality of institutionalization. Goffman (1961: 316) argues that the imprisoned people “play it cool” by combining opportunistic adjustments, conversion to institutional goals, and loyalty to the inmate group to maximize their chances of returning to the outside relatively undamaged. This adaptation of a new identity reflects both Goffmanian’s concepts of “spoiled identity” and his study of “total institutions” because people are stereotyped by hostile assumptions from those that are different from them, labeling those institutionalized as a danger to society and face external pressures to readjust their perspectives on crime, violence and other negative connotations.
Also of particular interest to us here, given our focus, is the insight that those with a “spoiled identity” cannot be fully embraced in society and that this creates distance between deviants and non-deviants. As Goffman claims, stigmas are contextual and relational. People living with a stigmatized identity, one that has been labeled by others, begin to embody the character themselves through a process called internalization. The stigmatized may cope in many different ways, but one involves associating with others with a similar stigma. The “spoiled identity” and stigma can coexist to reinforce the label. Stigma leads to shame, and “shame elicits strong self-deprecating reactions of the entire self…[and] hostility may be redirected towards the rejecting other in relation as a ‘defensive strategy’” (Lutwak, Panish, & Ferrari, 2003: 910). In terms of criminality, this concept could help explain gang membership or other in-group, out-group dynamics involving deviance (Link & Phelan, 2001). The “defensive
strategy” (Lutwak et al., 2003), acts as a protection of deviant individual’s self of sense, and GRIP aims to address these embodied feelings of shame by encouraging the open discussion of their past. The program would address the shame and aggression towards others as it attempts to return students to an unspoiled
identity, removing the stereotypical deviant labels and replace it with socially accepted desistance from crime.
Goffman discusses rehabilitation programs in institutions and suggests “that shortly after release, the ex-inmate will have forgotten a great deal of what life was like on the inside and will have once again begun to take for granted the privileges around which life in the institution was organized” (Goffman, 1961: 328). The inmate may have embodied the beliefs of rehabilitation programming, but with a contextual change, it is impossible to guarantee that he will remain rehabilitated. The temporary change can be described as a performance of a good sense of self rather than a truly authentic embodiment of progress. Though infrequent, the guidance of the facilitators and congregation with their peers in group therapy can be very therapeutic, and students may realize the importance of the group interactions. For example, in GRIP, the men sit in a circle to discuss painful memories, and this becomes a moment for the individuals to perform a good self in these face-to-face encounters with their peers. However, upon graduation of the program or release from prison, it is difficult to say whether or not the individual will maintain this good sense of self since the situational context has changed. The maintenance of a good sense of self may be difficult without the supportive environment of the GRIP healing circles, but if the students are able to create their own groups outside the program and embody their dedication to the GRIP peacemaker pledge, then perhaps a lasting unspoiled identity is possible.
Many GRIP participants discuss “feeling human” again because the facilitators of the program treat them as such, rather than viewing them with a negative connotation that may be typical on the outside. Once labeled as an offender with a criminal background, the label often becomes a defining aspect of their lives, and other people may judge them with harsh criticism for their past. The facilitators, separate from the inmate co-facilitators, are also outsiders but they encourage and praise the men without lenses of judgment. The face-to-face interactions with those that encourage positivity and development seems to be very important to the students’ morale. Goffianian theories of identity provide the guidelines of understanding the emotions behind “feeling human” because the students seem to let go of burdens and redevelop a good sense of self from the supportive healing circles from their peers and their facilitators as role models.
A simple experiment can be used to explain the significant impact a label can create. Link, Cullen, Frank, and Wozniak (1987) conducted a study of psychiatric patients and general perception of their stigmatized status and found that when a measure of the dangerousness was introduced, strong labeling effects by the public emerged. By identifying the group as a potential threat, the stigmatized experience the labeling effect by creating social distance with the general public, while people with some experience or knowledge of mental health may react differently. This is similar to the GRIP program because the students find solace knowing that the co-facilitators have experienced similar crimes and overcome traumas to become leaders of the program. The co-facilitators are likely to be more
not perceive themselves as stigmatized until confronted by others. Mental health has gained a lot of attention over the last few years and some illnesses are viewed with less stigma now than before (ADAA, 2015), revealing that as time changes, so do perspectives on certain groups of people.
Labeling theory argues that external influences of classification impacts individual self-identity and behaviors, which in turn can develop into a negative narrative. Stigma thus can be understood as a powerfully negative label that changes a person’s self-concept and social identity. Since GRIP focuses on creating “Peacemakers” and “Change Agents,” labeling theory could help explain the embodiment of a new self-identity. Instead of embodying the label of “deviant,” this perspective of labeling theory could lead to the adoption of the new identity of “Change Agent,” which could have far-reaching impacts on their narratives such as new life goals.
2.3 Maruna’s Desistance: Condemnation and Redemption Scripts
Maruna’s work on desistance relies on two types of narrative scripts: condemnation scripts, which are the narratives of offenders that persist with criminality, and redemption scripts, narratives of those who now desist from crime. Maruna identifies many characteristics that set persistent offenders and reformed offenders apart, contributing the differences between the two groups of deviants to a variety of factors, ranging from internal neutralization techniques to rehabilitation courses and goals of higher purpose. His theory also attempts to explain why some offenders will resist any modes of rehabilitation, and it often stems from internal labels or external lack of opportunities. Maruna’s (2001) work suggests that the progression displayed by desisters is psychological in nature because the changes involve a more coherent sense of self, an optimistic sense of efficacy, and a desire to be generative rather than self-absorbed. These ideas are consistent with psychological models of change, suggesting that awareness of offending changes over time. Essential conditions need to be met for previous offenders to lead law-abiding lives by
redirecting themselves away from persistent condemnation narratives to more redemptive scripts.
According to Maruna (2001), redemption scripts began by establishing goodness, providing some explanation for their participation in deviance as a creation of bleak circumstances or desire for power. Their deviance eventually leads them to be punished for their crimes. Once reaching this moment, outside forces, or the GRIP program in this study, believe in the goodness of the offender and help the offenders “make good” by providing the tools to desist crime. Newly empowered, the offender now “seeks to give something back to society as a display of gratitude” (Maruna, 2001: 87). This explanation of redemption aligns with many aspects of the GRIP curriculum, especially the remarks about giving back, which is a key component of the peacemaker pledge, a promise at the beginning of the program that clearly states the goals of the course and beyond.
There are some similarities between desistance and restorative justice as both bodies of research are fundamentally premised on a belief in the redeemability of human beings (Maruna, 2016; Sered, 2019). Both theories argue that humans do not have fixed moral character, and even those convicted of
the worst crimes have something positive to offer society. Desistance research acts as a vivid reminder that, as damaging and harmful as it can be, criminality is typically short-lived, occupying only a short period in human life course for most individuals (Maruna, 2016), so reintegration back into the
community is helpful in maintaining their redemptive scripts and recovery process. Similar to a desister’s redemption script, restorative justice represents an effort to understand a criminal event while preserving the idea of the wrongdoer as a good and valuable person by emphasizing redemptive scripts through the progression of self-narratives and development of a good self (Maruna, 2016; Sered, 2019).
Conceptualizing desistance from crime into two broad categories of condemnation or redemptive scripts was helpful in understanding the progression of how an offender can overcome criminality to lead a crime-free life. Desistance theory and its narrative scripts are particularly useful when analyzing the photo elicitation activity because of the explicit emphasis on two moments in time, before and after the GRIP program, and the particular narratives about each instance. The claims of the progression of narratives does not promise or guarantee any outcomes, but provides some insight to their feelings while participating in the program and a brief comparison to how they felt prior. According to Maruna (2001), instead of discovering a "new me,” desisting offenders reach back into earlier experiences to find and re-establish an “old me.” This reinvention of the self functions in the same way as Goffman’s “reverting to an unspoiled identity.”
Chapter 3 - Methodology
A small team of researchers collected three types of research data in two California State prisons. The stories of participants and non-participants from the program were studied in detail due to a balanced triangulation of interview transcripts, survey results, and photo elicitation activity. This chapter will describe the methodological considerations of the research design and the process of analysis.
3.1 Research Design
This study used a qualitative research method, and I made use of transcribed interviews rather than doing the interviews myself. Four interviewers conducted interviews in the prisons, and one individual
transcribed all of the interviews. The interviewees were both GRIP participants and non-participants. Interviewees first participated in a survey, followed by the semi-structured interview, and lastly the photo elicitation activity. A total of 89 interviews were conducted, and 67 of them were analyzed for this study. The discrepancy was due to a variety of factors. Ten interviews were disregarded because they did not have the necessary observations required for a discussion on the program and thus deemed non-relevant to our study. I personally coded 58 interviews, and the rest were delegated to a small team of coders. The first coder did 11 interviews and the second coder was tasked with 13 interviews. However the second coder was unable to complete the task, and thus all 13 interviews were excluded in our analysis. Intercoder reliability was assessed with one coder. The second coder used the codes that the first coder
and I decided on, relying on a pre-established set of codes and examples of our coded interviews. In the end, none of her coded interviews were included in this study, and thus intercoder reliability was only a factor with one other coder.
ATLAS.ti was used to code the transcripts and Google Sheets to organize the survey results and photo elicitation activity. A team of data entry assistants digitized the survey results into spreadsheets. The most time-consuming part of the interview process was already completed, in terms of recruiting,
conducting and transcribing interviews. This allowed me to go through the majority of the transcriptions, making the most of this valuable sample.
3.2 Triangulation: A 3-Way Check for Consistency
Subjectivity is unavoidable in all data interpretation, but offsetting researcher bias is possible to a degree when utilizing a systematic process for integrating multiple methods (Greene & McClintock, 1991). Triangulation is the combination of methodologies in the study of the same phenomenon by using independent measures to support a finding (Jehn, 2003). This study triangulates three techniques: transcripts, survey results, and photo elicitation, but also makes use of the GRIP Course Manual to check for consistency. The interviews are at the highest risk of outsider bias and interviewer influence, so the other components help provide legitimacy and balance to the interviews. One particular concern was regarding interview bias towards the GRIP program, so the self-administered survey results could provide some insight without concerns about outsider bias. The interview questions are quite thorough and can provide some validity to the interviews. The photo elicitation activity is most useful when comparing claims of narrative changes over time for the GRIP participants. The activity is also a beneficial tool to judge the success of GRIP through the lenses of non-participants. The GRIP participants used visuals in the photo elicitation activity to show their narrative progression with GRIP, and this process can support claims about narrative changes present in the interviews and surveys. There will be further explanations on the photo elicitation activity and surveys in subsequent sections.
The non-participants had little reason to falsify their responses about the program, so their judgment can be seen as mostly unbiased and again provide some sense of legitimacy. However, there could be a variety of factors that could explain why they decided to participate in the interviews, and any of them could create bias in their responses. The interviewers clarified that their participation in
interviews would not benefit or hurt the non-participants in any way because they would be
unidentifiable, and despite these warnings, it is possible that they were speaking highly of the program in hopes it could affect their chances of enrollment. GRIP participants could be biased towards the program and prior to reading the transcripts, I had anticipated a high percentage of those that were positive about the program, but was surprised to see that all of them were positive. This creates some level of skepticism because perhaps those that were less positive about the program were uninterested in speaking to
better in front of outsiders. Nevertheless, despite the subjectivity of the transcripts, the data seemed to suggest highly positive program results.
3.3 GRIP Course Manual
The GRIP Course Manual is a primary resource and it provides a detailed overview of the program. By outlining program aims and techniques, it is a powerful and valuable resource when used in combination with the collected data. By integrating information from the course manual with the survey, transcripts, and photo elicitation activity, it allows for a deeper understanding of the program because it helps explain concepts and goals that are addressed in the data. For example, the respondents often used program terminology in the interviews so the course manual was an excellent resource in explaining these program-specific concepts. Throughout this analysis, I will refer to this resource as the course manual.
3.4 Survey: Checking for Consistency
Two different sets of surveys were developed, separating the respondents between non-participants and GRIP participants. As previously mentioned, the survey includes questions about the program, self-esteem, impulsivity, and trustworthiness. Since the respondents were divided between prisons, prison yards, and various interviewers, the survey is a good way to check for consistency of the varying groups and possible influences. A brief comparison of the survey results from the varying prison yards found a consistently positive impact of the GRIP program on inmate relationships, a seemingly universal finding from all of the prison yards despite differences in program facilitators and interviewers. This consistent finding could help explain the overwhelmingly positive feedback for the program.
In terms of procedure, the participants completed the survey before the interview. The survey had answer choices ranging from 1 to 5, from “Strongly Disagree” to “Strongly Agree.” GRIP participants answered questions about how GRIP has affected them, followed by questions regarding self-esteem, impulsivity, and trustworthiness. Non-GRIP participants answered questions about their opinions about GRIP, followed by questions regarding impulsivity and trustworthiness. For this study, there will be no analysis of the survey data, and instead, one survey question will be used to check for consistency with the interviews.
Of all of the survey questions, there was one particularly interesting question regarding the program’s influence on GRIP participants in terms of how they relate to other inmates. This question is notable because it provides insight into GRIP’s influence on the prison yard, and positive relationships and identities align with their concepts of peacemakers. Often dangerous and volatile, a positive impact on the yard has many implications, such as creating a safer and less volatile prison environment.
3.5 Interviewers
Four people conducted interviews on behalf of this research study. One additional individual, responsible for the addition of the photo elicitation activity, sat in with one of the interviewers, technically bringing the total to five. As expected with a team of interviewers, they each differed in style and this created some noticeable differences in the interviews.
There were three interviewers in the first prison. Bowen Paulle, the first supervisor of this thesis, met the founder of GRIP and, after learning about GRIP, Bowen became interested in the research-based case for potentially bringing the program to Europe. He is convinced of the effectiveness of the program, at its present scale. Bowen is, however, uncertain whether or not GRIP can effectively spread to more prisons throughout California, let alone to another country. Mario A. Maggioni, an economics researcher and Camillo Regalia, a psychology researcher, from the Catholic University of the Sacred Heart from Milan, Italy, joined the team due to their expertise in their respective backgrounds. Mario is one of the authors of a research article about the changes in prosocial preferences with GRIP and Camillo is the expert regarding the photo elicitation activity. These three researchers worked together to develop the survey used in this study and conducted interviews in two yards in one of the two prisons.
There were two interviewers in the second prison. Sarah has a mixed background as a drug abuse researcher, and in this study, she had a leadership role in obtaining various approvals and permissions, which was very important due to the heavily restricted prison environment. Sarah and Marie conducted interviews in the second prison. Marie was referred to the program by the program founder and was interested in becoming a facilitator. She worked with Mario as an interviewer on another research study. All of their interview styles were so different and each came with their own set of pros and cons. Interviewers from one prison were more consistent with their style, bringing more balance in the
interviews by encouraging discussion but staying in the range of the set interview questions. The interviewers in the other prison had differing interview styles. To provide some anonymity to the interviewers, they will be referred to as ‘Interviewer A’ and so forth, as I begin to critique some of their work. Interviewer A had arguably the weakest connection to GRIP and this could be an explanation for their rather detached interview style (that seemed at times to lack depth and connection with the
respondents). The interviewer approached the interviews with a more rigid, structured format rather than the semi-structured interview format that others adopted and this limited depth in the interviews. Interviewer B’s interviews seemed more like a conversation with the respondents, so perhaps this encouraged them to open up and share more personal stories. Interviewer B did not do the photo elicitation activity with the non-participant group due to a misunderstanding, so this was disappointing. Interviewer A’s formal interview style was much shorter than other interviews conducted by the others, suggesting that a lot of potentially insightful information was left out due to the lack of engagement with the respondent. The lack of consistency was frustrating at times, causing some interviews to be more helpful than others. Since the photo elicitation activity was incorrectly implemented in the second prison,
the sample was much smaller than anticipated. However, despite this limitation, I would argue that the sheer number of interviews that were transcribed and coded for this study made up for this potential downfall. The variation of interview styles did not seem to impact enthusiasm for the program, and nearly all respondents were remarkably positive about GRIP.
3.6 Transcription Codes
I worked with both deductive and inductive methods. I used deductive methods by formulating my thesis through existing theoretical research and concepts and then coding the interviews with resulting
expectations or sensitizing concepts in mind. In terms of inductive methods, I used Deterding and Waters’ (2018) method of flexible coding, which is derived from grounded theory, first by observing themes and attributes from the interviews and then coding new significant findings. This process led to the formation of new concepts that I had not anticipated such as “freedom,” “humanity,” and “traditional views of masculinity.” A full list of transcription codes can be found in the appendix.
Codes were first conceptualized and then organized into code families. The code families act as broader themes for the secondary codes. The codes were generally framed with Maruna’s desistance theory in mind, dividing the collection of codes into two categories. Condemnation Script Codes described negative and deviant perspectives, and Redemption Script Codes described overcoming deviance or “making good.” The use of colors in ATLAS.ti helped keep the codes well organized. The colors were also helpful in preventing coding mistakes because they served a visual check.
3.7 Transcription Memos
Memos were incredibly useful regarding inductive methods because it allowed for transparent and authentic flexible coding and note-taking. Whenever I felt sensitized to a potentially new code, I began with brief notes in the individual interviews and then in memos. Memos were used to keep track of the entire coding process. I wrote 15 memos in varying lengths, and these memos provide a level of
authenticity to the research because it helps explain the adjustments and progress of the study. I also left comments on the majority of the transcriptions, usually some ending remarks about the interviews to keep in mind for future analysis. In addition to memos and notes within the ATLAS.ti program, I also
submitted weekly reports to my supervisor to stay accountable, on track, and also to reflect on the progression of evolving codes.
3.8 Photo Elicitation Activity: Methods and Background
The International Affective Picture System, created at the Center for the Study of Emotion and Attention at the University of Florida, was developed to provide a set of normative emotional stimuli to research emotion and attention. The aim was to create a large collection of standardized, emotionally evocative, internationally accessible, colored photographs inclusive of a wide range of categories (“Media Core,”
n.d.). For this study, twenty photo choices were selected from the larger sample, and before its use, one photo was exchanged for another because of fears that it would elicit a different emotion than expected. The original choice was a negative photo depicting crashing waves on a beach, but due to the coastal location of California, there were concerns that this photo may elicit positivity rather than the intended negativity. As a result, the image was exchanged for a dark photo of a skyscraper.
The photo elicitation activity transcripts were included with the interview transcriptions, so a separate spreadsheet was created to make a clear list of answer choices. Their selections and explanations were included for analysis, along with the emotional variance of the photo. The GRIP participants used visuals in the photo elicitation activity to show their narrative progression with GRIP, and this process can support claims about narrative changes present in the interviews and surveys.
While the use of photographs in social science is not a new technique, according to Copes, Tchoula, Brookman, and Ragland (2018), these photo-methods continue to be underused, especially with deviance studies. The use of photo elicitation interviews with GRIP participants was an innovative and useful tool to compare respondent’s perceptions of narrative changes before the program and how they felt towards the end of the GRIP program. These questions provide clear insight into self-narratives and identities in particular moments in time. As Clark-Ibanez (2004) suggests, photos are intimate dimensions of the social because the images can connect individuals with society, culture, or history by providing a unique way of communicating narratives about respondents’ lives in a visual and direct manner. Photo elicitation can also help make sense of content that otherwise might have been confusing and generate thoughts that go beyond the normal scope of the interview, spurring meaning that otherwise might have been dormant in regular face-to-face or semi-structured interviews (Clark-Ibanez, 2004). Loewenthal et al. (2016) found that photocards facilitate emotional expression and sharing, unlocking meaningful memories, and making new connections by fostering insight, reflection, and self-growth. By allowing respondents to freely associate with the photos, this process enables them to reflect on the consequences of their past and become accountable for their actions (Loewenthal et al., 2016). Allowing participants to tell their stories with their own agency produces richer data for analysis because this powerful medium engages the respondent to explore past feelings and emotions as well as address the change over time (Gariglio, 2016).
Active offenders and desisting offenders differ in ways they understand responsibility. According to Maruna (2004: 196), negative internal, stable, and global attributions are associated with persisting in criminal behavior, consistent with sociocogntive research on depression, such as “This is just the way I am,” “I’ve always been this way,” or “I fail at everything I do, no matter where I go.” He suggests that those that attribute positive life events to long-lasting personal qualities, “Because I am a worthy individual” have a better chance that they will be able to stay crime free (Maruna, 2004: 196).
The use of visuals as a method of self-reflection is considered to have a healing effect, especially when working with people with a “spoiled identity” (Jennings, 1990). The activity seemed to have helped
inmates further recognize and communicate their mental states, promoting emotional learning by
engaging with the self which may be too difficult to acknowledge directly (Loewenthal et al., 2016). The activity was conducted at the end of the interview as a way to wrap up the session and to allow room for discussion about anything that may have been left out.
A few unexpected and inconsistent problems arose with the photo elicitation activity. Non-participants were supposed to take part in the activity, but as previously mentioned, miscommunication in one prison concluded with no non-participant responses. Some interviews did not include the activity likely due to time constraints. A smaller sample was asked to choose a photo that represented how they felt at the moment, providing some insight to fellow inmates outside of the program. It is unclear why some individuals were asked to reflect on themselves when this was not apart of the standard list of questions. The combination of all these issues led to a much smaller sample than expected. Of the 67 interviews that were considered in this study, there were only 32 photo elicitation activity responses, or 48%, that were collected for analysis.
3.9 Intercoder Reliability and Coding Team
The three types of intercoder reliability are stability, accuracy, and reproducibility. When developing the coding scheme, I realized that more straightforward codes would produce more accuracy because simpler codes are easier to work with and less likely to be overlooked. The use of broader code families and secondary sub-codes allowed for both micro and macro approaches to the transcripts. Applying codes to larger sections of the transcripts improves reliability and the validity of the coding (Deterding & Waters, 2018).
Several revisions of the code list were conducted until a final set was established. I revised the list myself but took into consideration discussions with my supervisor and the coding team. The coding team consisted of three people, Isabel Speelman, Sarah Calhoun, and myself. They will be referred to as my coding partners throughout this section, providing some much needed anonymity for their work. Their input and suggestions were constructive in clarifying codes and creating new ones. Some of the
adjustments were due to confusion, overlapping codes, or the addition and removal of codes. According to a study by Campbell, Quincy, Osserman, and Pederson, (2013), about 10 percent of the interview sample is needed until the code revisions are usually finalized and intercoder reliability is established. In our case, we were able to reach a level of consistency after 7.5 percent of the interview sample.
Discriminant capability refers to how well coders categorize content and this was challenging because of the extensive code list. A particularly useful technique that I implemented was Campbell et al. (2013)’s suggestion to code the interviews twice, first with half the set of codes, and a second time with the other half. Splitting the list in half improves reliability because accurate coding becomes too difficult and inefficient when trying to juggle all the different codes at once. Most of the interviews are quite lengthy so the decision to divide the code list into two parts was helpful in alleviating the burden. This
technique also automatically demanded a second reading of the interview, which allowed me to catch any missed opportunities for codes. Unitization refers to the process of coding the meaning of the text, and these were easy to overlook so a second reading was helpful.
Longer passages may call for multiple codes, and these moments of uncertainty requires subjective interpretation. I expected accurate coding to be complicated, so Campbell et al. (2013) suggested a creative method to improve accuracy. The first coder goes through an interview with the coding program and codes the interview as usual. When passing the interview off to the second coder to check intercoder reliability, remove the coded labels but keep them bracketed. The empty brackets will allow for the second coder to focus directly on the same area in question. This method should be particularly helpful for sections of the interviews that may require multiple codes or when it is merely difficult to decide between codes. By narrowing it down to specific passages, this could help alleviate discrepancies and instead increase the concentration of accurate coding.
I worked with a coding partner and we compared five of the interviews, or 7.5 percent as previously mentioned, and were relieved to see that we had high interceder reliability. Areas with discrepancies were usually due to overlooking minute details of the passage or due to similarities of codes. I would argue that overlapping codes are not significantly alarming because many of the codes are derived through grounded theory and based on the comprehensiveness of the program. Grounded codes were developed as I began reading through the interviews and participating in discussions with my supervisor and coding partner. Their input was really helpful in broadening the scope of my code list and we were able to consider many more components of the program. The comprehensive nature of the program made it difficult at times to isolate a story or emotion to one singular code. As a result, some bias may arise due to personal judgment, but as a general rule, we decided that multiple codes were better than missing codes.
There were 43 transcripts for the first prison and 44 transcripts for the second, bringing the total to 87 transcribed interviews. I coded 58 interviews, and the rest were divided between my two coding partners. Coding Partner A was assigned 9 interviews and Coding Partner B with 15 interviews. A number of problems arose in the coding process that forced us to disregard part of the sample. Coding Partner B was unable to meet the deadline, so the assigned interviews were incomplete and thus discarded from the sample. This had the largest impact on the non-participant sample as 21 percent of the non-participant sample were excluded from consideration. Another five transcripts were discarded because the non-participants did not have relevant observations of GRIP non-participants. After these changes, this research team studied 36 GRIP participant interviews and 31 non-participant interviews, bringing the total to 67 transcripts. A small number of GRIP participants were GRIP graduates, but this was not always clearly identified so I will not make a distinction. In the end, I coded 87 percent of this truncated sample, and Coding Partner A coded 13 percent. The selection process was random. I simply started from the top of the folder and began coding from the list until I finished about half of the interviews from each prison.
The list did not seem to be uploaded in any particular order. The rest of the interviews were divided randomly between the two coders in a similar manner. This randomization process was not particularly systematic or calculated but indeed indiscriminate.
Chapter 4 - Non-Participant Observation of Changes
The most important question that the non-participant addressed was whether or not they had relevant observations of changes in GRIP participants. This question required them to be familiar with current GRIP students or GRIP graduates before and after the program. While none of the non-participants claimed to see negative change, a small percentage said that they did not see any change, and instead suggested that participants were faking it or participating in the program for Milestones. As mentioned previously, the Milestone policy allows inmates to reduce their sentences by participating in rehabilitation programs. These individuals would be labeled as inauthentic students and lessen the positive impact that GRIP seems to bring for its students and prison community.
Thirty-one non-participants were considered in this study and 94 percent reported seeing positive changes in attitudes and behaviors of the GRIP participants or graduates. While the interviews were overwhelmingly positive, there were two respondents that stood out and had some negative comments about the program and its students. No GRIP participants were negative about the program. Both negative respondents were non-participants and their biggest critique was that they did not see change for every GRIP student. The first respondent was very critical of the GRIP program’s inconsistency with producing lasting results. According to the transcript, he saw positive changes with GRIP graduates from the previous year but argued that he did not see changes with the current GRIP class. He saw some positive change, but not with everyone. He suggested that while some participants are genuinely motivated to change, others are also making use of Milestone credit. The following quote provides a little insight into his perspective. To briefly explain how quotes are included in this study, the respondent’s message is in quotations, followed by the interviewer, prison yard label, and individual code. This was how each respondent was anonymously identified for this study.
“They speak really good about it, but just by looking at them and what they do, I really don’t see a lot of changes.” - Sarah(A) NN476
He is also cynical about the facilitators because he believes they are only involved to make some money rather than a sincere desire to help people. Despite these opinions, he still had positive views about the program. There were two respondents that were apprehensive and critical of the program, and despite their seemingly negative view of the program, they were still very interested in participating in GRIP. I would argue that this is a significant finding because it shows that even those who are reluctant or hesitant
about the program would eagerly join if possible. This seems to suggest that in their opinion, the benefits outweigh the handful of negative components.
I find it particularly useful to study the critics of the program because their insights may be less biased and viewed as a more objective third-party. Although they were told otherwise, there is a chance that some non-participants were hoping to obtain a seat in the next GRIP cohort by discussing the positives surrounding the program. There are no benefits for the individuals who heavily critique the program, so it can be assumed that these are their honest opinions. GRIP participants are overwhelmingly positive about the program and most had very limited negative feedback. Some could argue that they have become almost too dedicated to GRIP philosophies and ignore some potentially problematic aspects. I think that the point of view from cynical non-participants helps to shed light on why the program is as life-changing as they claim.
The following is a quote from the previous cynical non-participant that helps explain the
perspective that the “bad eggs” do not reflect the majority of the program. He seems quite uncomfortable with inauthentic GRIP students, but believes that that the vast majority of them are bettering themselves. The quotes are followed by the name of the interviewer and the code of the participant; this is how they are labeled in the transcripts.
“Not everybody, but I would say 95% of them that did go through GRIP, have a better outlook, not only on life, but on the way they treat other people as well.” - Sarah(A)
NN476
The second critic of the program had a similar perspective. Despite not seeing changes in the two GRIP participants that he was familiar with, he was still interested in the program. He stated that the participants he knew from the program were only interested in the Milestone credit. He addresses the issue of rehabilitation credit in the following quote.
“[I find it] disturbing that [individuals only interested in Milestone credit] would take a seat from a guy that wants to be there…Not just for that program but a lot of the other
programs, also.” - Mario(A) DN110
By calling these people “disturbing” for participating without the right intention, he also addresses the issue of limited class sizes. Each GRIP class averages at around 30 students, and with several hundreds of people on the waiting list, a number that was provided by the respondents, many people will not have the opportunity. If the program is as exceptional as the GRIP participants claim, it would be a shame for those that miss out on the chance to join the program, especially if seats are taken up by inauthentic students.
Both of these non-participants witnessed those that they perceived to be inauthentic and had some negative viewpoints of the program, and yet, like everyone else interviewed in this study, they also praise the program and want to participate. A few GRIP graduates were training to be GRIP facilitators or continuing to meet in small groups to review the course material, so they were also very positive about the program and its legacy. This finding seems quite significant because if these individuals, the most negative respondents in the study, can overlook the limitations of the program and display a similar level of interest as other non-participants, one can conclude that the GRIP program has a powerful influence and reputation in these prisons.
Aside from these two respondents, all of the others were very positive about the program; it would have been hard to differentiate their sample with the participant group. Their eagerness for the program came from seeing positive change from the students, so the GRIP program seems to encourage demands for transformative change. I did not anticipate such eagerness for the program, especially since students were encouraged to recruit disinterested individuals. However, the general positiveness of non-participants could be related to recruitment bias because they heard about the research study through GRIP students, people that they were friends or at least familiar with. According to S. Calhoun (personal communication, May 27, 2019), when the GRIP program was first implemented, demand was low and they were only able to recruit enough people to fill the classes at 30 people each. In the second year, waiting lists exceed 400 men, so clearly the inmates were hearing or seeing something positive about the program (S. Calhoun, personal communication, May 27, 2019).
The most profound finding when studying the non-participants was their desire to better
themselves. Of course, there is a chance that they were only saying things to make themselves look better or saying things they believe the interviewers would like to hear, but all of them seemed to have
experience in other rehabilitation programs. This was an unexpected finding for me. Again, this could be due to the rehabilitative nature of the prison yards, but I still think that this finding is quite promising. As stated by many non-participants and GRIP participants, one of the most important aspects relating to program suitability is whether or not they are ready to embrace the emotional hardships that may arise with rehabilitation.
Chapter 5 - Program Suitability: Who Should Get a GRIP?
When GRIP was implemented in the first prison, San Quentin in California, the program held weekly meetings throughout an entire year. This schedule proved to be impossible due to the location of the subsequent prisons, so 8 hour-long sessions once a month were implemented instead. This was one of the major complaints from GRIP participants because they wanted more frequent and consistent lessons rather than one intensive lesson each month. People used the intensive schedule and heavy assignment workload as excuses for why they were not interested in the program or why they dropped out. The following quote provides some explanations as to why GRIP may not be suitable for everyone.
“It started off with about 30 inmates and then, little by little, people just started dropping out. They didn’t want [to] do the work, the assignments. Or some people [were] paroled or got transferred to other prisons, so there [were] various things that were happening.
But I did know a lot of people that just didn’t wanna do the work…Eight hours is too long.” - Bo(A) DG1
According to a document about drop out rates, there is a much higher percentage of transfers than dropouts. The program tracked the reasons for leaving the program, which ranged from dropping out because it was not a good fit, transfers to other institutions, and release. According to the 2018-2019 program year, three prison yards from one prison experienced three dropouts, 11 transfers, and one parole (“Student Data for Researchers,” 2019). With program sizes at about 30 people each, these statistics seem to be quite acceptable, especially since the participants repeatedly mention the intensity of the program.
When asked about GRIP suitability, numerous explanations were used to explain why some people but not others were a good fit for the program. The in-group, out-group comparisons with the “real criminals,” those that cannot be rehabilitated or refuse to do so, seemingly create a clear differentiation between the groups of men. Those that are seriously interested in rehabilitation, the in-group, compare themselves to the out-group, those that are not interested in getting better and the in-group seem to see themselves as more mature or better that those that persist with crime. These differences in perspective change their social circles as they tend to spend more time with those with similar mindsets.
Aside from excuses about the heavy workload or intensive lessons, many suggested that suitability was determined by maturity, age, or readiness for change. Others claimed that GRIP was suitable for anyone that genuinely wanted to change themselves. The lack of consensus about suitability did not lead to a clear answer, and “it depends on the person” was an easy fallback statement.
Readiness for rehabilitation is difficult to judge, particularly when the program demands being very forthcoming with sharing their trauma and their criminality. The lessons can be quite emotionally strenuous, and individuals must be vulnerable and open. Offenders are sometimes described as
manipulative or with superficial charm by criminal psychologists, traits that I have kept in mind while reading through the transcripts to be wary of potential lies or exaggerations. There may be a desire to save face to protect their identities that may feel threatened or weakened through programming. The following quote seems to suggest that some people may view opening up in front of others as a shameful act.
“Y’know for the most part, I gotta tell you this. I don’t think I’ve ever heard any of the gentlemen that I know say, ‘I won’t go because I’ve got to open up.’ It’s more along the
