Discrepancy Between Rhetoric and Practice: A Qualitative Study Assessing Barriers Associated With Prisoner Rehabilitation at Hawassa Correctional Facility,Southern Ethiopia

Abstract

It is widely documented that prisons in Ethiopia are inhumane and substandard and that inmates serving time in prison are mistreated and neglected. Yet, not much is known about the reason why the correctional system fails to be an agent of rehabilitation. By employing focus group discussion (FGD) and in-depth interview to collect data from prison inmates and prison staff, this study examined the factors that affected prisoner rehabilitation at Hawassa correctional facility, Southern Ethiopia. The finding of the study suggested that Hawassa correctional facility failed to fulfill its primary function of correction. A range of institutional- and inmate-related factors counteracted the very role of the institution as a rehabilitative agent. Six key factors were identified as barriers to successful prisoner rehabilitation: inadequacy of treatment personnel, underfunding of programs, absence of treatment personnel on administrative positions, weak inmate classification system, correctional officers’ low level of treatment orientation, and the inmate subculture. The prison administration, in alliance with other stakeholders, should put in place the requisite reform to address these barriers associated with prisoner rehabilitation.

Keywords

rehabilitation prison inmates prison staff Hawassa correctional facility Ethiopia

Introduction

The major goal of rehabilitation is to change offenders’ behavior and prevent future offending through correctional programs designed to address the factors that cause offenders to break the law (Adler, Mueller, & Laufer, 2007; Andargachew, 2004; Nagin, Cullen, & Jonson, 2009; Robinson & Crow, 2008). However, there has been high debate throughout correctional history, mainly in Western society, regarding the efficacy of rehabilitation in reducing recidivism. For most of the 20th century, rehabilitation persisted as the dominant philosophy of correction, enjoying considerable political and public support, with scholars placing a great deal of confidence in its efficacy to reduce recidivism. Nonetheless, onwards of the 1970s, rehabilitation lost its status as the dominant theory of correction mainly because of Martinson’s (1974) influential “nothing works” essay, in which he reviewed 231 studies of prison rehabilitation programs and concluded that programs had been largely ineffective. Martinson’s finding prompted a shift from the rehabilitative approach to the punitive one, which became the dominant sentencing practice in the last quarter of the century (Chavez & Dawe, 2007; Cullen, 2012; Cullen & Gendreau, 2000; Redondo, Garrido, & Sánchez-Meca, 2001; Warren, 2007).

Although correctional policy moved away from rehabilitation, some revisionist scholars became interested in revitalizing rehabilitation’s legitimacy by challenging the “nothing works” doctrine (Cullen & Gendreau, 2000; Redondo et al., 2001). These scholars contributed to the reemergence of optimism in rehabilitation by conducting large body of meta-analytic studies, which proved the effectiveness of correctional treatment programs in decreasing recidivism (e.g., Andrews et al., 1990; Antonowicz & Ross, 1994; Izzo & Ross, 1990; Lipsey, 1992; Redondo, Garrido, & Sánchez-Meca, 1997; Tobler, 1986; Whitehead & Lab, 1989). These series of meta-analyses, which were mainly conducted in North America and Europe, specifically demonstrated that “the rehabilitation programs that achieve the greatest reductions in recidivism use cognitive-behavioural treatments, target known predictors of crime for change, and intervene mainly with high-risk offenders” (Cullen & Gendreau, 2000, p. 110).

In the context of Africa, prisoner rehabilitation has been recognized as one of the major functions of the correctional system. Regional instruments of penal reform such as the Kampala Declaration (1996), the Arusha Declaration (1999), and the Ouagadougou Declaration (2002), which have been accepted by the majority of African states, promote the use of rehabilitation programs to change criminal behavior and facilitate a smooth reintegration of prisoners into society after imprisonment (Dissel, 2007; Sarkin, 2008).

However, unlike the case in North America and Europe, the debate surrounding rehabilitation has not been the dominant feature of the correctional discourse in Africa. Review of the existing literature reveals paucity of meta-analytic or other forms of studies, which investigate whether or not rehabilitation programs are effective in reducing recidivism. But rather, owing, perhaps, to the fact that rehabilitation is a relatively new correctional philosophy in many African countries, much of the correctional studies in the continent aim at investigating the extent to which the correctional system implements rehabilitation practices in accordance with national penal policies and regional instruments.

The majority of these studies documented that there exists a huge gap between policy and practice with regard to prisoner rehabilitation in Africa. The studies found that the prison system generally failed to implement effective rehabilitation schemes as a result of numerous constraints. To illustrate, studies conducted in Nigeria demonstrated that the prison system fell short of attaining the rehabilitation goal due to extreme overcrowding, inadequate rehabilitative facilities and programs, and shortage of well-qualified personnel (Gloria, 2014; Tanimu, 2010; Tenibiage, 2010). Similarly, studies in South Africa found that overcrowding, lack of resources, shortage of specialist personnel, and inadequacy of rehabilitation equipments hampered the effective rehabilitation of prisoners (McAree, 2011; Thinane, 2010). In studies from Kenya, it was found that overcrowding, availability of illicit drugs in prisons, poor working condition of prison staff, and inadequacy of well-qualified professionals (such as sociologists, psychiatrists, psychologists, counselors, and social workers) impeded effective rehabilitation of offenders (Nyaura & Ngugi, 2014; Omboto, 2013). Finally, a study in Zimbabwe identified shortage of personnel and lack of resources as the major challenges confronting rehabilitation (Rupande & Ndoro, 2014). Moreover, studies found the prison condition in African countries to be punitive, depriving, and dehumanizing, with the physical and psychosocial needs of prisoners largely neglected (Dissel, 2007; Omboto, 2013; Sarkin, 2008; Tanimu, 2010).

Studies of penal governance in Ethiopia, most of which are concerned with conditions of detention and human rights issues of prisoners, suggest that prison condition is harsh in the country, with prisoners largely suffering from extreme overcrowding, malnutrition, and unhygienic conditions (e.g., Addisu, 2012; Gosaye, 2003; Mintewab, 2005; Shambal, 2007; Yitayal, 2006). However, although this kind of research assessing detention conditions in Ethiopian prisons is common, there is paucity of studies that assess whether or not prisons are effective in implementing rehabilitation schemes, making our knowledge of the issue meager. Therefore, this study was conducted with the objective of filling this gap by vividly investigating the extent to which prisoner rehabilitation was implemented at Hawassa correctional facility, one of the correctional facilities in southern Ethiopia.

Based on what the evidences show, the central argument of the study is that prisoner rehabilitation appeared to exist only at the rhetoric level at Hawassa correctional facility without being supported by the necessary practical measures. As it will be discussed in the forthcoming sections, unlike many correctional studies conducted in Africa, this study demonstrated that it is not only administrative factors but also inmate-related factors that affect the effectiveness of prisoner rehabilitation, a finding that can be taken as a major contribution to the field of correction in the context of the continent.

Materials and Methods

Study Setting

This study was conducted at Hawassa correctional facility, one of the 23 correctional facilities found in Southern Nations, Nationalities, and Peoples’ Region (SNNPR). The correctional facility was established in 1970 during the imperial regime, and it is currently administered by SNNPR prison administration commission. The facility houses both male and female inmates in separate living quarters, and pretrial detainees are also placed in the facility. Inmates are housed in 19 dormitories, out of which 14 are for male inmates and five for female inmates. The inmate population varies from time to time, often ranging between 1,400 and 2,000. In terms of organizational structure, the correctional facility is composed of four departments: department of correction and rehabilitation, department of finance and procurement, human resource department, and department of inmate affairs. At the time this study was conducted, the total number of employees was 168, out of which 134 were custodial personnel and 34 were noncustodial personnel. The correctional facility was selected for this study because of its proximity to the researcher as it was located at his home town.

Ethical Consideration

Permission to conduct research at Hawassa correctional facility was approved by the head of SNNPR prison administration commission and the director of the facility. Participation in the study was voluntary and informants were required to sign informed consent forms. The aim and purpose of the study as well as method of data collection were thoroughly explained to each informant. Informants were clearly informed that they had the right to withdraw from the interview at any time and to skip questions they did not want to answer. Informants were also assured confidentiality.

Study Design and Sampling

The study was entirely qualitative and employed focus group discussion (FGD) and in-depth interview as methods of data collection. Informants of the study were prison inmates, correctional officers, and treatment staff. Purposive and snowball sampling techniques were employed to recruit informants into FGD and in-depth interview. A total of 30 informants—15 prison inmates, seven treatment staff, and eight correctional officers—participated in the in-depth interview. Prison inmates who had stayed long in the facility (5 years and more) were purposively selected to take part in the in-depth interview assuming that they had relatively better institutional experience, which might help them provide in-depth and reliable information about prisoner rehabilitation at the correctional facility. Indeed, they offered a detailed account of the rehabilitative performance of the correctional facility, which helped the researcher to adequately address the objective of the study. Career criminals with history of recidivism and membership to criminal gangs were selected for the in-depth interview by using the snowball sampling technique. The researcher established initial contact with some of these inmates and asked them for referral to other inmates. The finding from these inmates was essential in indicating the nature of the prison subculture and its debilitating impact on rehabilitation. Treatment staff and correctional officers were purposively selected for the in-depth interview considering that their institutional experience could allow them scrutinize the factors that affect the rehabilitation process. The correctional officers who participated in the study were the lower level officers who were in charge of keeping prison security and discharging such roles in prisoner rehabilitation as escorting inmates attending treatment programs. Information from officers helped the researcher to find out the impact of prison subculture and lack of inmate classification system on rehabilitation. Finally, three FGDs were conducted with inmates, each group consisting of eight participants, giving a total of 24 participants. The sampling technique and selection criteria used to select FGD participants were more or less similar with that used to select in-depth interview informants.

Data Collection

This study was conducted from February to April 2014. Prison inmates who participated in the study were selected with the help of treatment staff and cell heads who were known as Kabo in the language of the prison community. After establishing rapport with treatment staff and Kabos, the researcher was able to identify male inmates who participated in the study. Treatment personnel were also helpful in arranging a setting where FGDs and in-depth interviews were undertaken. While in-depth interview took 30 min on average, FGD took 1½ hr. Because of some constraints, reaching female inmates came to be tough for the researcher. Although the prison administrator allowed the researcher to interview female inmates, there came restrictions from female correctional officers who worried about the entrance of a male researcher into the premise of female inmates, leading the researcher to quit the interview soon after interviewing few inmates. Because of their being few in number, the researcher decided to include all treatment staff in the study. In-depth interview was conducted with each treatment staff on scheduled days. Interviews were held in offices and some convenient places in the facility and took 30 to 40 min. Correctional officers were also approached for in-depth interview, which was scheduled in two ways. In some cases, officers were interviewed on days they were free of discharging duties, and in other cases, they were interviewed at times they became free replaced by officers in the next shift. Interviews with officers took 20 to 30 min. Unstructured interview guides, which were developed in English and then translated into Amharic, were used to conduct FGDs and in-depth interviews. Because audio recording was not allowed by the prison administration, the researcher was obliged to rely only on note taking during individual interviews and FGDs.

Data Analysis

Data were analyzed using thematic analysis. Field notes of interviews and FGDs were transcribed in Amharic and transcripts were translated to English after they were checked for accuracy through repeated reading and revision of field notes. Following transcription, it was important to read and reread the transcripts to become familiar with the material and thereby go through the coding process. Manual coding technique was used to organize the data by identifying themes and categories containing similar ideas. The analysis was based on themes of interview guides and emergent themes derived from the data itself.

Results

Different factors have been found to affect prisoner rehabilitation at Hawassa correctional facility. The major factors identified by informants of the study are presented in six themes in this section: inadequacy of treatment personnel, absence of treatment personnel on managerial positions, underfunding of rehabilitation programs, correctional officers’ low level of treatment orientation, weak inmate classification system, and the inmate subculture.

Inadequacy of Treatment Personnel

The employment policy of Hawassa correctional facility appeared to be biased as it geared toward the disproportionate recruitment of custodial staff at the expense of treatment staff. A stark difference in the proportion of treatment and custodial staff is discernible if one examines the staff profile of the institution: While there were 134 correctional officers in charge of security, there were only seven treatment personnel in charge of delivering rehabilitation services.

Shortage of treatment personnel came to have chilling effect on the delivery of rehabilitation services. It became difficult for the available staff to handle tasks effectively given the large number of inmates in need of services and the absence of extra personnel to share responsibilities. This point was clearly expressed by a legal educator, one of the treatment staff of the institution:

It is very difficult for me to discharge duties effectively as I’m the only legal educator assigned to deliver service for all of the inmates serving time here. On top of this, having other duties as legal personnel such as serving as an attorney and prosecutor for the institution, it is hardly possible to concentrate on legal education with all energy and time.

Similarly, the psychologist of the institution echoed the challenges of delivering rehabilitation services in a context where few treatment staff were available for large number of inmates. He remarked,

It is ridiculous to claim that there is rehabilitation in a context where only one psychologist, one sociologist, one legal educator, and two vocational trainers are in charge of delivering rehabilitative services. What makes conditions even worse is the large number of inmates to whom you are expected to deliver the services. In my specific case as a counselor, counseling requires establishing frequent relationships with clients through series of follow-up sessions to bring successful change, which is unthinkable in the context of our institution.

The fierce shortage of treatment staff also curtailed the participation of inmates in rehabilitation programs delivered at the correctional institution. For example, it is no surprise that insignificant proportion of the total inmate population was enrolled in vocational training in a situation where only two vocational trainers were available to deliver training. At the time this study was conducted, out of the total inmate population (which was around 1,300), it was only 23 inmates who were enrolled in metalwork and 35 inmates who were enrolled in woodwork.

Absence of Treatment Personnel at Managerial Positions

It was found that treatment personnel were not represented on any of the managerial positions within the correctional facility. Those who occupied the top administrative positions, including the prison administrator and deputy administrator, were custodial personnel. Even the correction and rehabilitation department, which was in charge of delivering rehabilitative services, was headed by custodial personnel who did not possess specific qualifications consistent with the function of the position.

This condition, on its part, tended to have detrimental effect on prisoner rehabilitation. The administrative custodial personnel, who were trained in police science, were more concerned about security and control, scarcely bothering about treatment and rehabilitation. They were often resistant to the efforts of treatment staff to expand rehabilitation programs and elevate the institution to the level of a well-qualified rehabilitation center. This point was best explained by a female vocational trainer who was an employee of a nongovernmental organization (NGO) working on the rehabilitation of female inmates at the correctional institution:

In addition to the existing programs, we had once an interest to commence training in information technology. To this end, we requested the prison administration to appropriate a room where the training would be delivered. Initially, the prison administration promised that it would help us launch the program by allocating the room timely. On the basis of this, we bought computers, employed trainers, and requested the prison administration to give us the promised room. However, the prison administrators failed to fulfill their promise claiming that they need the room for other purpose.

Some treatment staff even went far beyond their professional duties to help the institution achieve its rehabilitation goal, although their effort was not translated to success due to lack of support from the managerial personnel. The best illustrative case in point is the failed project of establishing a library for inmates serving time at the correctional facility. One of the treatment staff remarked,

Because there was no library service for inmates, we decided to establish library at the facility. We disseminated a proposal to different schools, higher educational institutions, and NGOs, requesting them to donate books to the library planed to be established. Unexpectedly, we were able to collect many books from these organizations. Accomplishing this, we requested the prison administrators to deliver the room they promised to reserve for the library. However, they responded that the room was to be used for other purpose. It was heartbreaking response. We did everything not because it was our duty, but because we were enthusiastic to change and improve the institution and help inmates.

It was not only treatment staff but also inmates who witnessed the unresponsiveness of the managerial personnel to rehabilitation and treatment efforts. It was noted that the managerial personnel were not concerned whether or not inmates were rehabilitated. They tended to reject repeated requests from inmates who demanded the institution to expand rehabilitation programs. An inmate asserted,

We frequently request the prison administrators to commence new rehabilitation programs since the existing ones are not sufficient for the whole inmate population. However, they often respond that we don’t have the right to ask questions about rehabilitation. Once, one of the prison administrators said on a meeting “you are here not to be rehabilitated, but to be incarcerated.”

In a similar way, another inmate, FGD participant, stated the following when he explained the reluctance of the managerial personnel toward rehabilitative efforts initiated by inmates:

Once, an engineer who was imprisoned here sought to help the institution to commence vocational training in cobblestone and brick production. According to his plan, inmates were to be given training and then to be organized in small and micro enterprises so that they would earn money supplying production to the outside market. He told the prison administrators his plan and requested them to provide support for the commencement of the program. But, the administrators were not collaborative and his plan failed to come true.

Underfunding of Rehabilitation Programs

The budget policy of the correctional facility appeared to work to the disadvantage of the rehabilitation goal. The prison administration had rarely been interested to allocate budget to the inception of rehabilitation programs. Most of the programs were incepted by NGOs working on prisoners. Specially, an NGO called prison fellowship played tremendous role in establishing educational and vocational programs.

The prison administration also remained indifferent to appropriate budget to the execution of existing programs. There were cases that some programs were officially launched, but remained nonfunctional for many years due to shortage of budget. One of the treatment staff asserted,

I was employed in this institution in 1999 as a vocational trainer for weaving. However, it was only in the year 2005 that inmates were trained and graduated in weaving. In all the other years, there was no training in weaving because budget wasn’t allocated to the program. Every year, I request the prison administration to allocate budget to the program, although it always fails to respond. The program is not in existence, but I am still the employee of the institution.

Similar claim was evident in the case of woodwork program. The program failed to train and graduate trainees because prison fellowship’s project phased out and the prison administration failed to appropriate budget after the departure of prison fellowship. A vocational trainer in charge of woodwork program explained,

After prison fellowship departed, we requested the prison administration to appropriate budget to the program. But, the response was discouraging. Surprisingly, the administrators told us to borrow money from the prison to run the program and to pay it back by selling the furniture we produce in our production unit. Because of shortage of budget, there have not been trainees graduated in woodwork since 2010.

Correctional Officers’ Low Level of Treatment Orientation

The other barrier impeding the rehabilitation process was correctional officers’ resistance to rehabilitative ideas. It was noted that most correctional officers preferred a more punitive prison environment as they had a strong conviction that rehabilitation would not bring change in offenders and deter them from further offenses. Officers were generally reluctant to play supportive roles expected from them in relation to rehabilitation programs. In this regard, the most commonly raised issue was lack of interest among officers to escort inmates who participate in rehabilitation programs. The psychologist of the institution pointed out,

When I need a client for counseling, I request officers to escort the client to the counseling room. Although there are few collaborative officers, most of the officers resist such requests. In some instances, they say “why is counseling needed for such vagabonds who will be back to the prison again?” In other instances, they refuse to escort my clients claiming that they are serious offenders. Even when they are willing to escort, they don’t bring clients on time. And sometimes, they force me to stop before I finish a session. While a session should be of 50 minutes, they would tell me to stop at the 20th or 30th minute, claiming that they should take the inmates back to their premise.

For vocational programs, the prison administration had assigned officers whose regular and exclusive duty was escorting trainees to workshops where training was delivered. However, even in this case, officers would not often discharge their responsibility appropriately. Cases of absenteeism were reported to be common. A vocational trainer remarked,

Although the prison administration has assigned two officers to escort our trainees regularly, there are many occasions when either one of them or both of them are absent from job. We have repeatedly complained to the prison administration to give solution to the problem. However, solution hasn’t been given yet as the prison administrators don’t worry about the rehabilitation of inmates. What they worry about is security and control.

Treatment staff further blamed correctional officers for their tendency to tightly inspect inmates during training sessions. The surveillance by escorting officers created a sense of distress among trainees/clients, which made them lose interest in sessions. It also prevented trainers/counselors from handling sessions effectively. The psychologist of the institution remarked,

One of the problems I encounter in delivering counseling is the violation of the principle of confidentiality. Escorting officers often stay too close to the gate of the counseling room, which creates discomfort among clients and reduces their confidence to tell problems without fear.

A similar case was raised by a vocational trainer:

Escorting Officers often stand close to the gate of the workshop looking after the trainees. The trainees are not comfortable with this. They don’t follow the lesson attentively as their attention is diverted towards the officers.

Moreover, it was found that correctional officers had the tendency to engage in practices that were disruptive to the rehabilitation of inmates. One of such practices, which significantly impeded rehabilitation, was the smuggling of illegal substances to the prison. An inmate, FGD participant, explained,

Most of the officers are engaged in illegal prison trade selling contrabands such as drugs, chat, and alcohol. They sell these substances at exorbitant price. How can it be said that inmates are being rehabilitated while they are allowed to engage in such deviant behaviors?

Weak Inmate Classification System

The finding of the study suggested that there was no well-developed inmate classification system at Hawassa correctional facility. Sex was the only classification variable employed to classify inmates: Male and female inmates were housed in separate premises within the facility. With this exception, inmates were detained together, irrespective of their risk level and the type of offense they committed. Serious and novice offenders as well as juvenile delinquents and adult criminals were housed together.

The consequence of the weak inmate classification system was multifaceted. One of the consequences was that it left inmates vulnerable to the threat posed by violent offenders. It also presented itself as a risk factor impeding rehabilitation: Failure to separate juvenile delinquents from adult criminals as well as novice offenders from serious offenders produced conditions that constrained attitudinal and behavioral changes expected from inmates.

The detention of novice offenders with serious offenders in a single facility counteracted rehabilitation in various ways. One of the problems noted was the reduced feeling of guiltiness among novice offenders that resulted from their daily exposure to serious offenders. During their confinement, novice offenders became accustomed to different cases of serious and violent offenses, and, in some cases, they established acquaintanceship with the offenders themselves, an experience that could work to the detriment of self-criticism and regret as they might come to develop the thinking that their offense was insignificant compared with what others did. An inmate, FGD participant, said,

Every time a new comer arrives, the first thing he is asked is about the offense he committed. It is common to hear cases of murder in which victims are close associates such as parent, spouse, and sibling. When you are frequently exposed to such stories, your fear of crime tends to be low. You may take the offense you commit easy comparing it with such serious offenses. When you detain a murderer and a thief together, the result is that the thief would start to say “people kill their close relatives, what is the big deal about my offense?”

In addition, the detention of novice offenders with serious offenders was reported to act as a factor enhancing future criminality. As the correctional facility was a relational social system where the influence of the informal inmate group was high, it is no surprise that novice offenders were socialized to the criminal attitude and values of serious offenders as well as the knowledge and techniques of committing further offenses.

Novice offenders were tempted to imitate the criminal behavior of serious offenders mainly because they were influenced by the repeated rhetoric of serious offenders who would often concentrate on the material and financial benefits felony offers. A correctional officer asserted,

Here, there are serious offenders whose livelihood is based on what they earn from property offenses. They tell minor offenders that they would benefit more if they engaged in higher level offenses, and they teach them the techniques of committing the offenses. Novice offenders easily fall under their influence and take them as role models.

The detention of juvenile delinquents with adult criminals also exerted its own peculiar effect on rehabilitation. Being a facility for adult criminals, the penitentiary did not appear to be a suitable place for the rehabilitation of juvenile offenders, but rather a setting where they became susceptible to the negative influences of adult criminals.

For one thing, juvenile delinquents were exposed to a social learning process in which they came to imitate serious offenses from adult criminals, a condition that reinforced criminal behavior. An inmate explained,

Most of the delinquents here are sentenced for such minor offenses as gambling, petty theft, and conflict with parents. Their cases are not serious and they can be treated easily. However, this isn’t the right place for their rehabilitation. Instead of rehabilitation, they learn further criminal behaviors from adult criminals.

In a similar way, another inmate portrayed,

This place is not good for delinquents. There is nothing good that they learn here. Most of the rhetoric here is about crime. Some offenders are so proud of the offense they commit that they always talk about it. Even some who are sentenced for murder do not regret, but regard themselves as heroes. Especially, it is during the night time when inmates gather in dormitories that these individuals proudly talk about their offenses. The delinquents are exposed to such stories every day since they are not housed in separate dormitories.

The criminogenic effect of the correctional setting came to be further confirmed by numerous cases of recidivism among delinquents. An inmate asserted,

During my five years stay here, I have observed delinquents who returned to this prison four and five times. Every time they came, they were sentenced for offenses more serious than previous offenses. It is less probable that these delinquents will quit committing offenses in the future as it is common to see inmates who used to return to this prison frequently at early ages and who still do the same during adulthood.

Sexual harassment and abuse perpetrated by adult inmates stood out as the other threats the correctional facility posed to the well-being of juvenile offenders. It was reported that juvenile delinquents faced constant threat of rape by adult criminals because of their inability to defend themselves. The rapists also exploited the naivety and inexperience of the delinquents for their purpose. In most instances, they applied tremendous pressures in the form of bribes to the delinquents to abuse them sexually. An inmate remarked,

Juvenile delinquents are victims of sexual abuse perpetrated by homosexual adults. The perpetrators often give the delinquents money and buy them food, soft drinks, cigarette, and drugs in order to attract them and do what they want. In my three years stay here, I came to know six delinquents who were raped by homosexuals being deceived in such way.

Similarly, another inmate, who was working as a co-counselor at the correctional institution, explained how homosexual inmates deceive and rape delinquents:

Homosexual inmates usually get close to juvenile delinquents under the guise of helping and supporting them. Through time, they put them under their influence and teach them some behaviors such as drug abuse and smoking cigarette. In my experience as a co-counselor, I have been able to identify three delinquents who were victims of rape perpetrated by homosexuals. They told me that they weren’t aware of being raped as they took drug at the moment the act was committed.

The Deviant Inmate Subculture

The inmate subculture was found to be one of the institutional realities at Hawassa correctional facility. It appeared that inmates had a propensity to organize into informal social groups characterized by an antisocial normative system that stood against the rules and regulations of the prison administration and the values and norms of the mainstream society.

It became evident that inmates who mostly assimilated into the anticonventional prison subculture were those who had a well-developed and mature set of criminal value orientations upon admission. Specifically, inmates with previous history of conviction and membership to gang groups were more likely to engage in prison antisocial behavior than the other inmate population.

A typical manifestation of this phenomenon was the case of a group of inmates who were known as Workegnoch (which literally means workers) in the language of the prison community. Workegnoch were career criminals who had a well-established criminal experience and association with criminal gangs prior to incarceration. They most often came from an economically underprivileged family residing in slums and disorganized neighborhoods, and they were committed more frequently for property offenses. Recidivism was common among Workegnoch. Most of them were familiar with the correctional environment as they frequently returned to the facility committing subsequent offenses.

Having commonly shared attributes in terms of criminal history, criminal identity, and preprison experience, it was common among Workegnoch to organize into informal social groups during imprisonment. They constituted a subculture with peculiar argot system, value system, normative system, and behavioral patterns. There also existed a well-established pattern of social interaction within the group.

Among other things, the informal group was mainly characterized by anticonventional normative system. For instance, in contrast to the mainstream culture, the group attached high value to criminal career. Crime was regarded as an occupation upon which livelihood was based and a valuable means of earning better economic benefits. In fact, by calling themselves Workegnoch and the crimes they commit work, they conveyed the message that crime was a normal behavior out of which they made a career, just like people in other professions were committed to their career for survival. The normative system also dictated that individuals with great achievement in their criminal career ought to be highly respected and recognized and offered special privilege. Indeed, the group used a special argot called Gentle Workegna to praise a member who was extraordinarily successful in committing more sophisticated offenses. In addition to being respected and feared, a Gentle Workegna was recognized as an informal leader of the group, assigned with a title called owner to indicate his leadership position.

Anticonventional normative orientation was also reflected by behavioral patterns that Workegnoch displayed in the facility. It appeared that Workegnoch were rarely interested to participate in constructive regime activities such as sport, religious service, and rehabilitation programs, but they highly inclined to illegitimate institutional behaviors such as gambling, violence, and substance abuse. Moreover, Workegnoch commonly engaged in property offenses in which the prison community was frequently victimized.

The assimilation of Workegnoch into deviant subculture tended to have both short-term and long-term effects on rehabilitation. The short-term effect was related to the highly reduced interest within the group to participate in prison programs that were important for rehabilitation. The normative standard of the group, which dictated subscription to illegitimate institutional behavior and unconventional means of success, impeded the likelihood of engagement in constructive rehabilitative activities such as educational and vocational training. One of the Workegnoch asserted,

Workegnoch are not interested in rehabilitation programs. They don’t have interest to participate in vocational training and have legitimate job in the future. They are more worried about what offenses they should engage in to earn more money in the future. If a Workegna is found attending school, vocational training, and religious services, he will be ridiculed and labeled as “deviant.”

In the case of long-term effect, the deviant subculture supplied numerous opportunities for a teaching–learning process, whereby members came to imitate different criminal behaviors and techniques from each other, thereby reinforcing criminal identity and future criminality. The teaching–learning process was noted to be hugely the function of crime specialization: There existed a process of reciprocity, whereby a given Workegna who specialized in specific offenses shared his experience for others who specialized in other offenses and vice versa. One of the Workegnoch remarked,

The group is consisting of different Workegnoch who are experts in their respective work. The teaching and learning takes place in such a way that a given Workegna train other Workegna the skills and techniques of his work and he is in turn trained the skill and techniques of other works by fellow Workegna. In my case, for example, I had no idea about burglary before I came in here. I was trained the techniques of the work by other Workegnoch who specialize in it. In my turn, I taught them the different techniques related to motorbike theft.

Furthermore, the organization of Workegnoch into informal deviant groups also served them as a fertile ground to recruit fellow co-offenders for future crime. It was found that relationships established within the group were further enhanced and consolidated after imprisonment for the purpose of co-offending. One of the Workegnoch asserted,

Most of the time, the friendship you establish with Workegnoch here also continues after imprisonment. What you do is that you exchange telephone number so that you will keep in touch after imprisonment. I have created such relationship with a Workegna whom I knew during my previous incarceration. We exchanged telephone number at the time he was released and started to do work together after I was released.

Discussion

The result of this study suggested that Hawassa correctional facility failed to fulfill its primary function of correction. A range of institutional- and inmate-related factors counteracted the rehabilitative goal of the institution. Inadequacy of financial and human resources, absence of treatment personnel on managerial positions, poor inmate classification system, correctional officers’ low level of treatment orientation, and the inmate subculture were identified as barriers to successful prisoner rehabilitation.

In a context of high level of prison overcrowding, inadequacy of financial and human resource acted to the detriment of prisoner rehabilitation in a range of ways. Severe shortage of treatment staff seriously affected the accessibility and quality of rehabilitation programs delivered at the correctional facility. Because programs were poorly staffed, the quality of services was at a very minimal level, and the proportion of the inmate population enrolled in programs was significantly reduced. Financial constraint was a serious challenge in the implementation of prisoner rehabilitation. The extreme shortage of budget limited the scope of the rehabilitation service, curtailed the quality of services, and resulted in the abandonment of programs in some cases. This finding is consistent with other findings, which have been reported by investigators assessing prisoner rehabilitation in African prisons (Gloria, 2014; McAree, 2011; Rupande & Ndoro, 2014; Tanimu, 2010; Thinane, 2010).

It is well documented that the success of prisoner rehabilitation depends on the extent to which correctional officers accept the rehabilitation philosophy and engage in rehabilitative endeavors (Lambert, Hogan, Altheime, Jiang, & Stevenson, 2009; Laswell, 2010). In this study, it was found that correctional officers were generally indifferent to the issues of rehabilitation and treatment. Most officers had negative attitude toward rehabilitation as they advocated a more punitive prison environment. They were also blamed for their reluctance to play expected roles in the implementation of rehabilitation programs and their engagement in smuggling of illegal substances into the prison. This result is consistent with studies that have found prison officers’ lack of interest in rehabilitation as a factor impeding rehabilitation (Tanimu, 2010; Walsh, 2006) and other studies that have reported the disruptive impact of officers’ involvement in the smuggling of drugs into prison (Gloria, 2014; Omboto, 2013; Tanimu, 2010). Literature indicates that correctional officers’ involvement in inmate treatment and rehabilitation depends on the level of acceptance of the rehabilitation philosophy by administrators of the correctional institution (Laswell, 2010). Officers would not likely be receptive of inmates’ rehabilitation and treatment if the management of a correctional facility does not exhibit support for rehabilitation (Antonio, Young, & Wingeard, 2009). Hence, in the context of Hawassa correctional facility, correctional officers’ indifference to rehabilitation might be the reflection of a similar tendency, which was evident among the administrative staff.

Inmate classification system is developed to properly manage prisoners by effectively dealing with the varying degrees of risks they present to the correctional environment. It enables correctional institutions to effectively implement their rehabilitation goal by preventing the negative impact of high-risk offenders on low-risk offenders (Farr, 2000). The finding of the current study suggested that there was no well-developed inmate classification system at Hawassa correctional facility. Among other things, there was no segregation of minor offenders from serious offenders and juvenile delinquents from adult criminals. This condition, on its part, affected rehabilitation in various ways. The detention of juvenile delinquents in adult facility made them susceptible to the negative influences of adult criminals in two ways. On one hand, juvenile delinquents faced constant threat of rape inflicted against them by adult offenders, a finding concurrent with available studies, which indicate that juvenile delinquents placed in adult institution are at great risk of physical abuse and sexual assault (Arya, Ryan, Sandoval, & Kudran, 2007; Vincent & Zeidenberg, 1997). On the other hand, juvenile delinquents came to be predisposed to a setting that prompted imitation of serious criminal offenses from adult criminals, a condition that enhanced the likelihood of future criminality. The detention of novice offenders with serious offenders was also found to have adverse effect on rehabilitation. Placed in a single facility with serious offenders, novice offenders were exposed to a condition, which led to an increase in the intensity of criminal attitudes and socialization into a criminal subculture. Indeed, this is the reason why some criminologists argue that prison has the special capacity to facilitate criminal thinking and identity in inmates with little or no prior correctional experience (Walters, 2003).

The formal administrative structure of the prison system and the informal inmate subculture are inseparable entities between which there should be a smooth functional relationship if prison administration as well as rehabilitation is to be achieved successfully (Caldwell, 1956). Nonetheless, it is documented in the preponderance of the correctional literature that prison inmates assimilate into a subculture that prescribes illegitimate standards of behavior opposed to behavior prescribed by the conventional society and the formal prison authority (Caldwell, 1956; Garabedian, 1964; Johnson, 1960). Consistently, it was found in the current study that inmates with previous history of conviction and membership to criminal gangs organized into informal groups characterized by anticonventional value system and normative standards. These inmates, who already had a well-developed criminal value orientation upon admission, violate prison rules frequently by engaging in illegitimate institutional behaviors such as violence, gambling, drug abuse, and theft. This finding is in agreement with the importation model, which claims that inmates with more extensive arrest and incarceration histories, prior involvement with gangs or security threat groups, serious substance abuse problems, and previous use of violence are more likely to import antisocial behaviors to prison and engage in further disruptive activities during incarceration (DeLisi, Trulson, Marquart, Drury, & Kosloski, 2011; Dhami & Ayton, 2007; Lahm, 2008; Reisig & Lee, 2000).

The frequent involvement of inmates in institutional misconducts can be taken as a predictor of the likelihood of future offenses. Tittle (1974) stated the following while explaining the relationship between engagement in illegitimate institutional behavior and future inclination to law violation:

. . . Values, attitudes, and behaviors that are contrary to an official prison regime are indicative of anti-social characteristics generally. Thus, disrespect for prison rules, loyalty to other inmates, and disparagement of submission to prison authority are taken to indicate disrespect for law, commitment to a criminal culture, and unwillingness to submit to legal authority. (p. 263)

Assimilation into the anticonventional prison subculture also acted as a factor diminishing participation in prison rehabilitation programs. Inmates who subscribed into the subculture were found to have little or no interest in constructive rehabilitative activities such as educational and vocational training delivered at the correctional facility. This corroborates Thomas and Foster’s (1972) observation that

as groups of inmates come to oppose the prison as an organization and to highly value their interpersonal relations with one another, the solidarity of the inmate system increases and the probability of the prison organization acting as an efficient change or rehabilitation agent decreases. (p. 15)

Moreover, subscription to the deviant prison subculture exposed inmates to a social learning process, in which different criminal techniques and skills were shared, a condition that consolidated further criminal behavior. This is consistent with the finding of other studies, which have demonstrated the capacity of prisons to enhance criminal thinking and identity in inmates who assimilate into the inmate subculture (Camp & Gaes, 2005; Garabedian, 1964; Roxell, 2011; Thomas & Foster, 1972; Walters, 2003). In addition to sharing criminal techniques and skills, there was also a common practice of recruiting fellow co-offenders for future crime. Relationships established in the prison often continue after imprisonment for the purpose of co-offending. In relation to this, Roxell (2011) found that inmates who incline to the inmate counterculture become more interested in creating new contacts for the purposes of future criminality.

Above all, managerial incompetence was cited as the major factor contributing to the rehabilitative failure of the correctional facility. Administrative positions in the correctional facility were dominantly occupied by custodial personnel who were trained in police science and had little knowledge about rehabilitation, which resulted in failure to put in place effective rehabilitative schemes. The prison administration was highly inclined to the custodial goal, and rehabilitation was a mere rhetoric used to elicit reputation. In relation to this, literature indicates that custodial-oriented prison administration largely focuses on improving security, safety, and order rather than delivering effective rehabilitative intervention (Craig, 2004; Howells, Heseltine, Sarre, Davey, & Day, 2011; United Nations Office on Drug and Crime [UNODC], 2006).

Conclusion and Recommendation

The result of this study indicated that prisoner rehabilitation was a highly neglected issue at Hawassa correctional facility despite the claim that it was the principal goal of the facility.

The rehabilitation rhetoric has not been supported by practical measures, indicating the fact that penal governance has remained a serious challenge at the correctional facility. In this context of ineffective penal governance, combating crime will be hardly possible and criminal recidivism will more likely remain unaddressed, posing further threat to public safety and security. This calls for wide-ranging penal reform, which will assist to address existing constraints, achieve successful prisoner rehabilitation, and reduce recidivism. Among other things, it is imperative to put in place the following reforms. First, there is a need to equip the correctional facility with enough resources for effective rehabilitation ventures. This can be done by deploying adequate treatment personnel such as sociologists, social workers, psychologists, and vocational trainers, and by allocating sufficient budget to rehabilitation programs. It is also important to improve inmates’ level of participation in rehabilitation programs by introducing additional programs based on their need. Second, if successful prisoner rehabilitation is pursued, there is a need to ensure the representation of treatment personnel at administrative positions. More specifically, the department of rehabilitation and correction should be headed by well-qualified treatment personnel who can design effective rehabilitation schemes and mobilize institutional resources for effective program implementation. Third, correctional counseling should be embedded in correctional training so as to inculcate correctional officers with the requisite skills, knowledge, and attitudes for inmate rehabilitation. Continuous on-job training should also be part of the effort to enhance treatment orientation among correctional officers. Fourth, the prison administration should consider system of inmate classification as an essential part of rehabilitation intervention. There is an urgent need to establish separate detention facilities for juvenile delinquents and novice offenders to protect them from the disruptive effects of the correctional environment. Fifth, there should be an effective mechanism to deal with the inmate counterculture, which stands against formal rehabilitative efforts. Intensive treatment should be directed toward inmates who assimilate into the deviant inmate subculture. Such inmates, who have history of repeated offending and involve in frequent institutional rule infraction, are at higher risk of future criminality if the necessary intervention is not made.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biography

Fitsum Meseret is a lecturer of sociology at Wolaita Sodo University, Ethiopia. He attended undergraduate study at Gondar University, Ethiopia, and graduated in BA degree in sociology in 2008. He did postgraduate study at Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia, and graduated in MA degree in sociology (health and well-being) in 2014. As a lecturer of sociology, he is engaged in teaching, research, and community service.

References

Addisu

(2012). The human rights of detained persons in Ethiopia: A case study in Addis Ababa (Unpublished master’s thesis). Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Adler

Mueller

Laufer

(2007). Criminology and the criminal justice system. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Andargachew

(2004). The crime problem and its correction (Vol. 2). Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: Addis Ababa University Press.

Andrews

Zinger

Hoge

Bonta

Gendreau

Cullen

F. T.

(1990). Does correctional treatment work? A clinically relevant and psychologically informed meta-analysis. Criminology, 28, 369-404.

Antonio

E. M.

Young

L. J.

Wingeard

M. L.

(2009). When actions and attitude count Most: Assessing perceived level of responsibility and support for inmate treatment and rehabilitation programs among correctional employees. The Prison Journal, 89, 363-382.

Antonowicz

D. H.

Ross

R. R.

(1994). Essential components of successful rehabilitation programs of offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 38, 97-104.

Arya

Ryan

Sandoval

Kudran

(2007). Jailing juveniles: The danger of incarcerating youth in adult jails in America (A campaign for youth justice report). Retrieved from http://www.campaignforyouthjustice.org/Downloads/NationalReportsArticles/CFYJ-Jailing_Juveniles_Report_2007-11-15.pdf

Caldwell

(1956). Group dynamics in the prison community. The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, 46, 648-657.

Camp

Gaes

(2005). Criminogenic effects of the prison environment on inmate behavior: Some experimental evidence. Crime and Delinquancy, 51(3), 425-442.

10.

Chavez

Dawe

. (2007). International research and trends in education and training provision in correctional settings. In Dawe

(Ed.), Vocational education and training for adult prisoners and offenders in Australia: Research readings (pp. 16-26). Adelaide, South Australia: National Centre for Vocational Education Research.

11.

Craig

S. C.

(2004). Rehabilitation versus control: An organizational theory of prison management. The Prison Journal, 84(4, Suppl.), 92-114.

12.

Cullen

F. T.

(2012). Taking rehabilitation seriously: Creativity, science, and the challenge of offender change. Punishment & Society, 14, 94-114.

13.

Cullen

F. T.

Gendreau

(2000). Assessing correctional rehabilitation: Policy, practice and prospects. In Hornery

(Ed.), Criminal justice 2000: Policies, processes, and decisions of the criminal justice system (Vol. 3, pp. 109-175). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

14.

DeLisi

Trulson

Marquart

Drury

Kosloski

(2011). Inside the prison Black box: Toward a life course importation model of inmate behavior. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 55, 1186-1207.

15.

Dhami

Ayton

(2007). Adaptation to imprisonment: Indigenous or imported? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 1085-1100.

16.

Dissel

(2007). Rehabilitation and reintegration in African prisons. Retrieved from http://www.hsrcpress.ac.za/downloadpdf.php?pdffile=files/PDF/2220/08_African_Prisons.pdf

17.

Farr

K. A.

(2000). Classification for female inmates: Moving forward. Crime & Delinquency, 46, 3-17.

18.

Garabedian

P. G.

(1964). Social roles and process of socialization in the prison community. Social Problems, 11, 139-152.

19.

Gloria

D. S.

(2014). Challenges of imprisonment in the Nigerian penal system: The way forward. American Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 2, 94-104.

20.

Gosaye

(2003). The role of the judicial in the prevention of detained persons: A practiced oriented study (Unpublished master’s thesis). Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

21.

Howells

Heseltine

Sarre

Davey

Day

(2004). Correctional offender rehabilitation programs: The national picture in Australia. Retrieved from http://www.criminologyresearchcouncil.gov.au/reports/200203-04.pdf

22.

Izzo

R. L.

Ross

R. R.

(1990). Meta-analysis of rehabilitation programs for juvenile delinquents: A brief report. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17, 134-142.

23.

Johnson

E. H.

(1960). Bureaucracy in the rehabilitation institution: Lower level staff as a treatment resource. Social Forces, 38, 355-359.

24.

Lahm

K. F.

(2008). Inmate-on-inmate assault: A multilevel examination of prison violence. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 120-137.

25.

Lambert

Hogan

Altheime

Jiang

Stevenson

(2010). The relationship between burnout and support for punishment and treatment: A preliminary examination. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 54, 1004-1022.

26.

Laswell

J. L.

(2010). An assessment of individual and organizational characteristics and their impact on correctional officer’s perception of professionalism and treatment orientation (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Indiana.

27.

Lipsey

M. W.

(1992). Juvenile delinquency treatment: A meta-analytic inquiry into the variability of effects. In Cook

T. D.

(Eds.), Meta-analysis for explanation: A casebook (pp. 83-127). New York, NY: Sage.

28.

Martinson

(1974). What works?—Questions and answers about prison reform. The Public Interest, 35, 22-54.

29.

McAree

(2011). Prisoner rehabilitation in South Africa: A case study of phoenix Zululand’s work in Eshowe correctional facilities. Retrieved from http://www.phoenix-zululand.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/tommy-ISP-_2_1.pdf

30.

Mintewab

(2005). Disposition of female prisoners in Ethiopia: Law and practice (Unpublished master’s thesis). Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

31.

Nagin

D. S.

Cullen

F. T.

Jonson

C. L.

(2009). Imprisonment and reoffending. Crime & Justice, 38, 115-200.

32.

Nyaura

E. J.

Ngugi

N. M.

(2014). A critical overview of the Kenyan prisons system: Understanding the challenges. International Journal of Innovation and Scientific Research, 12, 6-12.

33.

Omboto

J. O.

(2013). The challenges facing rehabilitation of prisoners in Kenya and the mitigation strategies. International Journal of Research in Social Sciences, 2(2), 36-43.

34.

Redondo

Garrido

Sánchez-Meca

(1997). What works in correctional rehabilitation in Europe: A meta-analytic review. In Redondo

Garrido

Pérez

Barberet

(Eds.), Advances in psychology and law: International contributions (pp. 499-523). Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter.

35.

Redondo

Garrido

Sánchez-Meca

(2001). Treatment of offenders and recidivism: Assessment of the effectiveness of programmes applied in Europe. Psychology in Spain, 5, 47-62.

36.

Reisig

M. D.

Lee

(2000). Prisonization in the republic of Korea. Journal of Criminal Justice, 28, 23-31.

37.

Robinson

Crow

(2008). Introducing rehabilitation: The theoretical context. Retrieved from http://www.sagepub.com/upm-data/27229_01_Robinson_&_Crow_01.pdf

38.

Roxell

(2011). Co-offending among prison inmates. The Prison Journal, 91, 366-389.

39.

Rupande

Ndoro

(2014). Challenges faced by the Zimbabwe prison service in implementing prison rehabilitation programs: A case of Marondera prison. International Journal of Innovative Research and Development, 3(13), 62-77.

40.

Sarkin

(2008). Prisons in Africa: An evaluation from a human right perspective. Retrieved from http://www.centreforum.org/assets/pubs/payment-by-results.pdf

41.

Shambal

(2007). Disposition of prisoners in Ethiopia: A case study in Raya (Unpublished master’s thesis). Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

42.

Tanimu

(2010). Nigerian convicts and prison rehabilitation ideals. Journal of Sustainable Development in Africa, 12, 140-152.

43.

Tenibiage

D. J.

(2010). Counseling for productive employment of prison inmates. European Journal of Educational Studies, 2(3), 25-33.

44.

Thinane

T. S.

(2010). The institutionalization of effective rehabilitation programmes at Groenpunt maximum security prison (Unpublished mini-dissertation). North-West University, Vanderbijlpark, South Africa.

45.

Thomas

W. C.

Foster

C. S.

(1972). Prisonization in the inmate counterculture. Social Problems, 20, 229-239.

46.

Tittle

C. R.

(1974). Prisons and rehabilitation: The inevitability of disfavor. Social Problems, 21, 385-395.

47.

Tobler

(1986). Meta-analysis of 143 adolescent drug prevention programs: Quantitative outcome results of program participants compared to a control or comparison Group. Journal of Drug Issues, 16, 537-567.

48.

United Nations Office on Drug and Crime. (2006). Social reintegration: Custodial and non-custodial measures. Retrieved from https://www.unodc.org/documents/justice-and-prison-reform/cjat_eng/4_Social_Reintegration.pdf

49.

Vincent

Zeidenberg

(1997). The risks juveniles face when they are incarcerated with adults. Retrieved from http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/97-02_rep_riskjuvenilesface_jj.pdf

50.

Walsh

(2006). Is corrections correcting? An examination of prisoner rehabilitation policy and practice in Queensland. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 39, 109-133.

51.

Walters

(2003). Changes in criminal thinking and identity in novice and experienced inmates: Prisonization revisited. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 30, 399-421.

52.

Warren

(2007). Evidence-based practice to reduce recidivism: Implications for state judiciaries. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections.

53.

Whitehead

J. T.

Lab

S. P.

(1989). A meta-analysis of juvenile correctional treatment. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 26, 276-295.

54.

Yitayal

(2006). The disposition of prisoners in Ethiopia (Unpublished master’s thesis). Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.