The Effects of Federal Policies on Prisoners and Families During and After Incarceration

Breanna Strong

Advisor: Dr. Rebecca Bales

Social and Behavioral Sciences

California State University Monterey Bay

Fall 2015

1

Abstract

This research paper serves two purposes, first, it examines federal policies and their

effects on prisoners and their families during and after incarceration; second, to determine the

relationship between California State University Monterey Bay students’ family income and

their attitudes toward the receipt of financial aid benefits by criminal drug offenders. A literature

review found that federal policies are discriminatory and negatively impact inmates and their

families financially, residentially and emotionally. Using quantitative research methods and

SPSS data analysis software, no relationship was found between students’ family income and

their attitude toward the receipt of financial student aid by criminal drug offenders. However,

using the descriptive statistical function in SPSS, students tend to disagree with discriminative

policies highlighted in this research paper.

Introduction

According the “Family Impact Rationale” mass incarceration devastates the sanctity of

families by sending non-violent offenders to prison (Bogenschneider, Little, Ooms, Benning, &

Cadigan, 2012). Murray and Murray (2012) point out that not only is mass imprisonment not

effective, the financial burden it places on families and communities should be included as a

factor when calculating costs. The Bureau of Justice Statistics reported that at the end of 2014

there were 1.6 million people in state and federal custody and out of those inmates 37% were

African American males, 32% white males and 22% Hispanic males, where females only

accounted for 7% of inmates (U.S Department of Justice, 2015). The Federal Bureau of

Investigation reported drug violation arrests in 2014 amounting to almost 1.6 million, higher than

violent crimes which were just over one million (FBI, 2014). These statistics leave me to

question what policies have been put in place that lead to such a high prison populations and how

2

do these policies negatively impact families? The purpose of this paper is to illuminate the ways

in which policy negatively impacts the rehabilitation of criminal drug offenders and affects their

families.

Public policies featured in this paper are the ‘Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention

and Control Act of 1970’, the ‘Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986’, the ‘Violent Crime Control and

Law Enforcement Act of 1994’, and the ‘Higher Education Reconciliation Act of 2006’. Because

racial biases are observed in policies prior to the aforementioned, it is worth briefly noting some

of these previous policies. After describing what these policies detail I will describe the ways in

which these policies have negatively affected inmates and their families residential and financial

stability. Unfortunately these policies have created racial disparities of African American and

Latino minority groups, whether intentional or unintentional during the legislative process, and

has made post release success extremely difficult for ex-convicts who have served their

sentences. For research purposes, I will analyze student opinions towards these policies, using

Peter Blau’s theory to analyze one of my hypotheses described later in this paper.

Labor Force Threat

Reviewing today’s statistical data and legislative policies, which will be laid out

throughout this paper, one can begin to recognize where discrimination plays out in these

policies (Peterson, 1985, Mauer, 2005., Smith, & Young, 2003, Centers for Community

Alternatives, n.d). Because the highest incarceration rates are of non-violent drug convictions

(U.S Department of Justice, 2015), along with the Shafer Commission’s 1972 report stating

marijuana does not cause physical dependency and does not pose a public safety threat, my focus

for this paper is on non-violent marijuana convictions. My rationale for this is based on the fact

that government research has declared that marijuana is not a harmful substance over forty years

3

ago yet people are being convicted and sentenced for its possession, manufacturing, distribution

and trafficking. In the literature review I highlight sources on policies that have negative

implications for incarcerated persons and their families.

Regulation

The first regulation of marijuana happened with the Marijuana Tax act of 1937 in

response to the high unemployment rate during the Great Depression (Peterson, 1985). Mexican

immigrants had been a cheap labor force until the availability of jobs had decreased dramatically

because of the Great Depression. Peterson (1985) also points out that the Harrison Narcotics Act

of 1914, which criminalized cocaine and opiates, was in response to the surplus of Chinese

workers threatening the labor force and the opium trade that began in the 1800’s. These policies

are discriminatory acts created to control Chinese and Mexican populations by controlling their

customs. However, Congress had to change American perspectives on a substance Americans

had been using for centuries.

Marijuana, Threat or Not?

Even though cannabis was highly used in American medicines (Shafer, 1972) and its

fibrous stalk was used for basic supplies such as textiles, various cords, twines and threads (Ash,

1948), Congress was able to classify it a dangerous and negative symbol by using the Mexican

term marijuana (Peterson, 1985). This adaptation of marijuana as a negative substance made the

public assume marijuana “brought forth violent outburst and criminal behavior as well as rape of

white woman” (United States Sentencing Commission, n.d), and it creates a slothful,

unproductive people among users (Shafer, 1972). However, despite their regulation marijuana,

opiates, and cocaine had become increasingly used in the 1960’s, where marijuana was seen by

law enforcement to coincide with opiates. This led to the popular assumption by law

4

enforcement and the public that marijuana acts as a stepping stone into harder substances

(Shafer, 1972). As a result President Richard Nixon signed the ‘Comprehensive Drug Abuse

Prevention and Control Act of 1970’ into federal law. This act classified marijuana the most

dangerous, even more so than methamphetamine and many pharmaceutical drugs.

As mentioned in the previous paragraph, marijuana was seen to coincide with opiates.

One of the major declarations of the ‘Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of

1970’ was the classification of marijuana as a ‘Schedule I’ illicit substance in section 202 of this

bill (CDAPCA, 1970). This bill declared that marijuana was the equivalent of cocaine in that it

has the highest potential for addiction and abuse, is not accepted in medical practice and is seen

as unsafe to use even under the supervision of medical staff (CDAPCA, 1970). This law also

enacted the Shafer Commission whose responsibility was to conduct comprehensive research on

marijuana and drug abuse. After extensive research in and outside of the United States, the

Shafer Commission concluded that marijuana possesses no threat to public safety and causes no

physical dependency or health risks to users other than minor pulmonary concerns (Shafer,

1972). Today marijuana remains a Scheduled I narcotic substance despite the commission's

recommendation marijuana be removed from both Scheduled 1 and the list of illicit substances as

there is no evidence it causes violent or physically addictive behavior.

Mandatory Sentencing Laws

One of the biggest debates over prison legislation and drug convictions is the

implementation of mandatory sentencing laws. Mandatory sentencing laws for drug offenders

were signed into law under the ‘Narcotics act of 1956’ but were repealed by congress in 1970

because prosecutors and judges were reluctant to prosecute certain charges because this law did

not allow them to take into account other causal factors, sometimes treating violators as severely

5

as they treat hardened criminals (United States Sentencing Commission, n.d). Another reason for

their appeal was that they “had not shown the expected overall reduction in drug law violations”

(United States Sentencing Commission, n.d). In 1970, the Comprehensive Drug Abuse

Prevention and Control Act was signed into law omitting minimum sentencing for first-time

offenders, decreasing maximum sentencing, from the 1956 law, for drug convictions and

establishing a complex drug classification structure in which convictions were based on the

classification schedule (CDAPCA, 1970). Classification was broken into five schedules (I, II, III,

IV, and V) where substances classified under Schedule I are labeled by Congress as most severe,

having the highest risk of abuse and addiction and are not safe to use even under medical

supervision. Substances classified in Schedule II are less severe than I, where III is less severe

than II and so forth. Substances scheduled II and above are all accepted for medical use. Drugs

corresponding with their perspective schedule are marijuana, heroin and LSD (Schedule I),

cocaine, methamphetamine, Vicodin and Demerol (Schedule II), Tylenol with codeine, anabolic

steroids and testosterone (Schedule III), prescription drugs such as Valium, Darvocet and Xanax

(Schedule IV), and cough suppressants with codeine (Schedule V) (U.S Drug Enforcement

Administration, n.d). This new classification system “tied the penalties both to the type of crime

(e.g., sale and possession) and the type of substance involved” (Peterson, 1985, 251). The

implementation of the ‘Anti-Drug Abuse act of 1986’ had brought back mandatory minimum

sentencing laws and extended sentencing further for first time drug traffickers, requiring a five-

year and a ten-year minimum sentence based on the type and quantity of the substance

(ADAA,1986). Mandatory sentencing laws require harsher sentences for marijuana according to

its classification, something that threatens the family and parental bonds as well as future

6

prospects. But federal laws are used further to decrease chances for criminal drug offenders to

succeed post institutionalized.

Disqualification of Federal Benefits

According to Longaker et al., (2013), the majority of prison inmates are high school

dropouts, substance abusers and from low socioeconomic backgrounds where education would

increase their chances for post-institution success. All of these circumstances make it incredibly

difficult for them to compete for equal resources in today's competitive society. With this being

said, Congress discontinued Federal Pell Grants to inmates attending college while

institutionalized under the ‘Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994’ and

further disqualified them from receiving financial aid benefits under the ‘Higher Education

Reconciliation Act of 2005’ even after their sentences were served (U.S Department of

Education, 2006). Once released from prison those convicted of ‘certain’ drug crimes are also

disqualified from receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) under section 115

of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA,

1996). However, their children still qualify to receive benefits (PRWORA, 1996).

Effects on Prisoners and Families

The implications of these laws are negative for prisoners and their families both during

and after their institutionalization. Sentencing based on classification requires lengthier

sentencing for non-violent criminal drug offenders regardless of their prior circumstances, some

examples being whether or not the person being prosecuted is a parent, if so is he or she primary

parent or does the family or child rely on that persons income, is there substitute care for their

child/ren. Because the aforementioned factors are not considered, many families and substitute

caregivers are often financially burdened where residential instability could also be a result

7

(Hairston, 2001., & Murray & Murray, 2010).When families were reliant on the income of the

person being prosecuted they may need to downsize residence or move in with family or friends.

Others move closer to their incarcerated family member. Other financial strains occur through

appeals process and court fees if they choose to fight the charges or when families try to

maintain the offender by sending him money for commissary goods (Smith & Young, 2003).

Lengthy sentences divide and potentially split apart family bonds (Bogenschneider, et al., 2012)

where children can feel abandoned or angry with their parent for being absent, potentially

causing emotional and psychological damage (Johnson. & Easterling, 2012., Murray & Murray,

2010., & Makariev & Shaver, 2010). Furthermore, stigmatization of having a conviction record

creates difficulty for inmates when looking for employment (Phillips, & Gates, 2011) in an

American economy without a college education or profitable skills. Because the majority of

inmates are low income and no longer qualify for federal and state financial assistance, ex-non-

violent criminal drug offenders have less opportunities in obtaining educational capital,

economic prosperity, and improve their chances of a life without crime, for the betterment of

themselves and their families.

Theory

Social Structure theorist Peter M. Blau suggests the way society is structured influences

human behavior leading to criminal activity. According to Messner (1986) and McVeign (2006),

Blau’s theory suggests social structure has two properties, heterogeneity and inequality, where a

society can live and function together with stability until conflict causes instability. People

generally associate with people, or groups of people, of similar backgrounds, interests, ideas,

cultural or other valued beliefs. However, with population growth and distribution contact and

associations between different cultures are more likely to occur than contact within a single

8

group. This creates a multi-membership group relation where an individual is a member to

multiple groups of similar interests. Within a population there are social positions that are

hierarchically distributed based on categorical attributes, which Blau defines as “income and

years of education” (McVeig, 2006, 515). Inequality comes about when groups competing over

similar resources feel or claim they deserve certain, or more resources based on their categorical

attributes over groups who possess or possess too little or no attributes. Conflict occurs when two

or more opposing groups are competing over central resources, where one group suppresses the

other based on hierarchical merits.

Although Peter Blau’s social structural theory is applied on a macro scale, I apply it on a

macro and micro, or individual scale. Because America is a nation rich in cultural diversity,

differences in cultural beliefs create negative attitudes or biases towards different cultures.

Collectively, there are certain groups of people who do not understand, agree with, nor accept

differences in cultural beliefs that guide behavior and lifestyle among different cultural groups.

These dominate cultural biases create discriminatory attitudes guiding collective beliefs and

assumptions that deviant cultures don’t attribute to the proper maintenance of society, and thus

should not benefit from certain resources. This ultimately creates an unequal system of

resources.

This theory can be applied to the policies aforementioned. From a cultural perspective,

the dominate society linked marijuana to Mexican cultures which categorized Mexican cultures

with a criminal element. From this perspective, marijuana is a Mexican resource leaching into

Euro-American, African Americans and college populations and is seen to produce disruptive

and unproductive behavior according to fearful Americans and government officials (Shafer,

1972). From Blau’s theory, marijuana is the resource that many argue for but those in charge of

9

our country are controlling its availability of use, with penalties on those who are found

associating with its possession, manufacturing, and distribution. Those convicted of such crimes

are seen as not deserving of educational resources over those who are not charged with drug

offenses.

The U.S economy has limited job availability where some jobs can only be obtained

through education, which is not free. Those of low socioeconomic status qualify for financial aid

benefits unless they are convicted of certain drug crimes. When a person is convicted of a drug

offense they are categorized as a member of a certain group (criminals), and thus Congress and

the public believes they are not deserving of government resources at taxpayer expense.

According to Blau’s theory, on an individual level, ex-offenders’ nonviolent criminal drug

conviction statuses keep them from obtaining federal and state funded educational resources, or

the means to obtain categorical attributes (i.e., income, and college degree), that would help

improve his or her livelihood as well as the livelihood of their family. Because the majority of

inmates are poor and uneducated (Longaker, 2013), these policies only perpetuate inequality on a

macro scale by denying a valued resource that has been determined not a dangerous threat to

health or society, and by inhibiting the upward social mobility of people who have served their

sentence and desire educational prosperity the same as those with no criminal drug conviction.

Research Methodology

For my research I chose quantitative methods. My research sample of California State

Monterey Bay students was selected based on random sampling and convenience. In order to

receive a good response rate I printed paper copies of my survey then distributed them to two

business and SBS classes and random people in the library. I distributed my survey to 114

students, 9 were thrown out due to inconsistencies and 12 were thrown out because of a survey

10

revision, therefore only 93 student responses were analyzed in this study. Based on Peter Blau’s

theory, I wanted to know if students’ income (a categorical attribute) influenced their decision in

agreement or disagreement of financial aid assistance to non-violent criminal drug offenders. I

hypothesize that the higher the student's family income, the more likely student responses will be

negative or in disagreement with the receipt of financial aid benefits to drug offenders. Also, in

order to see if students favor regulation of marijuana they were asked to respond to two

questions; whether they agree with the regulation of marijuana similar to alcohol (21 and older),

and whether they agree with the regulation of marijuana similar to tobacco (18 and older). I

hypothesis students will favor the regulation of marijuana similar to alcohol over that of tobacco.

Lastly, to understand students’ attitudes towards policies highlighted in the literature review I ran

some descriptive statistics analysis on their responses to mandatory minimum sentencing laws,

whether criminal drug offenders should be able to receive financial aid and welfare benefits, and

if marijuana should remain a Schedule I controlled substance.

I adapted my survey from one done by Paul J. Silvia (2003) in which he measures the

attitudes of prison reform on 561 college undergraduate students. I created it using a 4 point

Likert scale where respondents were directed to circle one of four options; strongly agree, agree,

disagree, and strongly disagree, the key being 4= Strongly Agree, 3= Agree, 2=Disagree, and

1=strongly For the purposes of my analysis I used (R) in my own scoring key, to reverse the

scores for those questions that did not favor drug offenders receiving federal and state benefits.

My survey was equipped with two demographic questions and fourteen questions using Likert

scale. A copy of my survey is in the appendix at the end of this paper.

Results & Analysis

11

Using SPSS quantitative data analysis software I conducted one Spearman correlation

coefficient analysis, one Pearson correlation coefficient analysis and several descriptive statistics

analyses. In order to determine the strength of the linear relationship between students’ family

income and their attitudes towards the receipt of federal student financial aid by criminal drug

offenders I chose a Spearman correlation coefficient test. Responses for “Persons convicted of

drug offenses should not be able to receive financial aid benefits” were coded into SPSS as;

Strongly Agree=1, Agree=2, Disagree=3, and Strongly Disagree=4. Responses for students

family income were coded as; $0-31, 999= 1, $32,000-59,999= 2, $60,000-149,999= 3, and

$150,000+= 4. The assumption is that students with higher income will score low (or in

agreement) with the statement that persons convicted of drug offenses should not receive

financial aid benefits. Calculating the relationship between student’s family income and how

students rated the receipt of financial aid by drug offenders, the Spearman correlation coefficient

analysis found an extremely weak correlation that was not significant (r (91) = -.138, p >.05)

(Figure 1). Student attitudes in agreement that drug offenders should not receive financial aid are

not related to students’ family income. Therefore, I reject my hypothesis and accept the null

hypothesis that there is no relationship between income and student attitudes. For my second

analysis I chose a Pearson correlation coefficient to test the strength between two variable

student responses. Student were asked to respond to two statements where both responses were

coded into SPSS as; Strongly Disagree= 1, Disagree= 2, Agree= 3, and Strongly Agree= 4. The

statements were “Marijuana (other than medical) should be regulated at the same level as alcohol

(21 and older)”, and “Marijuana (other than medical) should be regulated at the same level as

tobacco (18 and older).” The assumption is if students score high in agreement with the

regulation of Marijuana similar to alcohol then they would score high (or in disagreement) with

12

the regulation of marijuana similar to tobacco. Calculating the relationship between student

opinions on regulating marijuana similar to alcohol or to tobacco, a Pearson correlation

coefficient analysis found an extremely weak correlation that was not significant (r (91) =.099, p

> .05) (Figure 2).There is no relationship between the two variables. Therefore, I reject my

hypothesis and accept the null hypothesis that students favor regulation of marijuana similar to

alcohol more so than tobacco.

Figure 1

Figure 2

Correlations

MJ_Reg_Alc MJ_Reg_Tob

MJ_Reg_Alc Pearson Correlation 1 .099

Sig. (1-tailed) .173

N 93 93

MJ_Reg_Tob Pearson Correlation .099 1

Sig. (1-tailed) .173

N 93 93

In order to run descriptive statistics analysis I used the frequencies options in SPSS to

chart student response results from four variable statements. Students responded to whether they

strongly agree, agree, disagree, or strongly disagree with mandatory minimum sentencing laws

(Figure 3), the receipt of financial aid benefits by criminal drug offenders (Figure 4), the receipt

13

of welfare benefits by criminal drug offenders (Figure 5), and marijuana remaining a Schedule I

(Figure 6). Out of 93 responses analyzed 49% of students disagreed with mandatory minimum

sentencing laws, 55.9% of students disagreed that criminal drug offenders should not receive

financial aid benefits. However, I recognize the wording for this survey questions may have been

misleading for students, therefore, questioning the accuracy of my results. When it came to

criminal drug offenders receiving welfare benefits upon release from prison 43% of students

agreed. Lastly, 51% of students disagreed that marijuana should remain a Scheduled I controlled

substance.

Figure 3

5%

30%

48%

16%

Mandatory Minimum Sentencing

Strongly Agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Figure 4

14

Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Should NOT Receive_FinAidBen

Figure 5

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree 0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

SR_Welfare_Benefits

15

Figure 6

2%

13%

51%

34%

Marijuana should remain a Schedule I

Strongly Agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Discussion

The federal policies discussed in this paper are discriminatory and negatively impact

prisoners and their families before and after incarceration by separating parents from their

child/ren for lengthy periods of time and by inhibiting their chances toward upward social

mobility. Concerning national spending, one should question why the government chooses to

spend money housing marijuana offenders when they have printed documentation of

commissioned scientific research claiming it is not dangerous to health and public safety?

According to the VERA Institute of Justice the average annual cost per inmate is $47,421

(VERA, 2012). However, James Vacca (2004) wrote that when inmates are enrolled in

educational programs “the correctional education program produce a national savings of

hundreds of million dollars per year.”

For the purposed of my analysis of student opinions over financial resources and policies,

I ran one analysis based on Peter Blau’s theory. I theorized students’ categorical attribute (i. e.,

16

family income) would affect their opinions towards criminal drug offenders receiving federal

resources. A Spearman correlation coefficient analysis was conducted with no significant results,

therefore not supporting my theoretical hypothesis that student income influences their opinion.

However, there are two reasons why my research analysis failed to support my hypothesis, one

being the fact the wording could have misguided students responses, and the second being that

my research was conducted on college students, a population the Shafer commissions (1972)

reported largely uses marijuana. Although my hypothesis guided by Peter Blau’s theory was not

proven, his theoretical framework on social structure helps me understand that society has a

hierarchal order where those who are at the top make decisions, rules or laws that those on the

lower levels of the hierarchal order are required to follow.

Some interesting findings from my results were students responses against the policies

mentioned. If policies are supposed to represent public opinion then it would be safe to say that

the policies mentioned here reflected popular opinion at the time of their enactment.

Understanding that my results are not representative of American college students, it does

interest me in knowing how many American college students do in fact disagree with these

policies. If the majority of college students who are the new generation of voters do disagree

with these discriminatory policies, then we could possibly see a shift in future policies that are

ideally non discriminative towards prisoners, ex-convicts and their families while offering them

more opportunities towards social, educational and financial prosperity.

·

17

References

Anne L. Ash. (1948). Hemp: Production and Utilization. Economic Botany, 2(2), 158–169. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/4251894 on September 2, 2015

Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-570, 100. Stat. 3207 (1986).

Bogenschneider. K., Little. O., Ooms. T., Benning. S., & Cadigan, K (2012). The family impact rational: An evidence base for the family impact lens. The Family Impact Institution. 1-31. Retrieved from https://www.purdue.edu/hhs/hdfs/fii/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/fi_rationale_0712.pdf on August 20, 2015

Centers for Community Alternatives. (n.d). The use of criminal history records in college admissions reconsidered. Retrieved fromhttp://communityalternatives.org/pdf/Reconsidered-criminal-hist-recs-in-college-admissions.pdf on September 3, 2015

Comprehension Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, Pub. L. No. 91-513, 84 Stat. 1236 (1970).

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2014). Estimated number of arrests.[Data file]. Retrieved from https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/table-29 on August 6, 2015

Hairston, C. F. (2001). Prisoners and Families: Parenting issues during incarceration. Retrieved from http://aspe.hhs.gov/basic-report/prisoners-and-families on September 4, 2015

Johnson,E. I., & Easterling, B. (2012). Understanding unique effects of parental incarceration onchildren: Challenges, progress and recommendations. Journal of Marriage and Family, 74, 342-356.

Longaker, A. J., Naylor, A., Rose, C. A., Simpson C. G., Ward, K., Williams, J., (201Incarceration within American and Nordic prisons: comparison of national and international policies. The International Journal of Research and Practice on Student Engagement, 1(1), Retrieved from http://www.dropoutprevention.org/engage/contents/v1-n1/ on August 7, 2015

Makariev, D., & Shaver, P.R. (2010). Attachment, parental incarceration, and possibilities forintervention: an overview. Attachment & Human Development, 12, 311–331.

18

Mauer, M. (2005). Thinking about prison and its impact in the twenty-first century. Walter C. Rechless Memorial Lecture, 2, 607-618. Retrieved from http://www.sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/inc_osu_reckless.pdf on September 15, 2015

McVeigh, R. (2006). Structural influences on activism and crime: Identifying the social structure of discontent. American Journal of Sociology, 112(2), 510-566. Retrieved from

http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/10.1086/506414.pdf?&acceptTC=true&jpdConfirm=true on September 26, 2015

Messner, S. F. (1986). Modernization, structural characteristics, and societal rates of crime: An application of Blau’s macrosociological theory. The Sociological Quarterly, 27(1), 27-41. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/4106163.pdf?acceptTC=true on September 26, 2015

Murray, J., & Murray, L. (2010). Parental incarceration, attachment and child psychopathology. Attachment & Human Development, 12(4), 289-309.

doi:10.1080/147517909034166889 Retrieved on August 3, 2015

Personal Responsibilities and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104 193, 110 Stat.2105 (1996).

Peterson, R. (1985). Discriminatory decision making at the legislative levels: A analysis of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970. Law and Human Behavior, 9(3), 243-269. Retrieved from http://www.selfteachingresources.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/Discriminatory_Decision_Making_at_the_Legislative_Level.23144328.pdf on August 24, 2015.

Phillips, S. D., & Gates, T. (2011). A conceptual framework for understanding the stigmatization of children of incarcerated parents. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 20, 286-294. doi:10.1007/s10964-008-9347-8 Retrieved on August 4, 2015.

Shafer, R. P. (1972). Marijuana a signal of misunderstanding. The Official Report of the NationalCommission on Marijuana and Drug Abuse. New York: The New American Library, Inc. 1-233.

Silvia, P. J., (2003) Throwing away the key: measuring prison reform attitudes. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33 (12), 2553-2564.

19

Smith, C. J., & Young, D. S. (2003). The multiple impact of TANF, ASFA and mandatory drugsentencing for families affected by maternal incarceration. Children and Youth Services Review, 25 (7). Syracuse, NY, 535-552. doi:10.1016/S0190-7409(03)00043-4 Retrieve on September 2, 2015.

U.S Department of Education. (2006). Changes made by the Higher Education Reconciliation Act of 2005 (HERA) to students and institutional eligibility and student assistance general provisions, under the federal student aid programs. Retrieved from http://ifap.ed.gov/dpcletters/attachments/GEN0605.pdf on August 20, 2015

U.S Drug Enforcement Administration. U.S Department of Justice. (n.d). Drug Schedules. Retrieved from http://www.dea.gov/druginfo/ds.shtml on August 28, 2015

U.S Department of Justice. Office of Justice Statistics. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2015).Prisoners in 2014 (NCJ No.248955). Retrieved fromhttp://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p14_Summary.pdf on August 6, 2015

U.S Sentencing Commission. Office of Public Affairs (n.d). The national legislative and law enforcement response to cocaine: Report on cocaine and federal sentencing policy. Retrieved from http://www.ussc.gov/report-cocaine-and-federal-sentencing-policy-2 on August 6, 2015

Vacca, J. (2004) Educated Prisoners are less likely to return to prison. Journal of Correctional Education, 55 (4), 297-305.

VERA Institute of Technology. (2012) The price of prisons/California. Retrieved from http://www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/price-of-prisons-updated-version-02914.pdf on September 8, 2015

20

Appendix· A.Survey· B. Survey Scoring sheet

A. SurveySURVEY

Hello. My name is Breanna and I am conducting research for my Senior Capstone Project. The purpose of my study is to collect data on CSUMB student attitudes of prison policies pertaining to drug convictions. This survey should take about 5 minutes to complete and has no potential causes of harm. You may choose to withdraw at any time. Your responses will be recorded with no identifiable information and any physical copies of responses will be destroyed thereafter. I accept your provided responses as your consent to participate. Thank you for your participation.

Survey Questions

Persons convicted of drug offenses should have the right to receive welfare benefits. (circle one)Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree

Prisoners convicted of drug offenses have a right to education. (circle one)Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree

Persons convicted of drug offenses should not be able to receive Financial aid benefits. (circle one) Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree

Federal funding to prisons in general should include: (circle one for each)● Medical SA, A, D, SD ● Educational (high school diploma, job training) SA, A, D, SD ● Higher education (for college credits) SA, A, D,

SD ● Parenting classes focusing on family relationships SA, A, D, SD ● Substance abuse programs SA, A, D, SD ● Prison expansion SA, A, D, SD

21

Mandatory minimum sentencing laws require persons convicted of drug crimes to spend at least a minimum number of years in prison regardless of the person's circumstances. How do you feel about these laws? (circle one)

Strong Agree, Agree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree

Please read before answering questions on the other side of this paper: A report commissioned under the “Controlled Substance Act of 1970” was released in 1972 claiming marijuana does not cause physical dependency and does not threaten public safety. The commission recommended marijuana be removed from the classification of a Schedule I illicit substance. Drugs (including marijuana) under a Schedule I classification are considered to have the highest potential for abuse and addiction, are not accepted for any medical use and are seen as unsafe to use even under the supervision of medical professionals. Marijuana remains to this day as a Schedule I narcotic drug.

Marijuana (other than medical) should remain classified as a Schedule I narcotic drug.Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree

Marijuana (other than medical) should remain on the list of illegal narcotics1-Strong Agree, Agree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree

Marijuana (other than medical) should be regulated at the same level as alcohol (21 and older).Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree

Marijuana (other than medical) should be regulated at the same level as tobacco (18 and older).Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree

Gender: malefemaleother

What is the annual income of your family?$0-31,999$32,000-59,999

22

$60,000-150,000$150,000+

B. Survey Scoring SheetSURVEY

Hello. My name is Breanna and I am conducting research for my Senior Capstone Project. The purpose of my study is to collect data on CSUMB student attitudes of prison policies pertaining to drug convictions. This survey should take about 5 minutes to complete and has no potential causes of harm. You may choose to withdraw at any time. Your responses will be recorded with no identifiable information and any physical copies of responses will be destroyed thereafter. I accept your provided responses as your consent to participate. Thank you for your participation.

Survey Questions

Persons convicted of drug offenses should have the right to receive welfare benefits. (circle one)Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree

Prisoners convicted of drug offenses have a right to education. (circle one)Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree

Persons convicted of drug offenses should not be able to receive Financial aid benefits. (circle one) Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree (R)

Federal funding to prisons in general should include: (circle one for each)● Medical SA, A, D, SD ● Educational (high school diploma, job training) SA, A, D, SD ● Higher education (for college credits) SA, A, D,

SD ● Parenting classes focusing on family relationships SA, A, D, SD ● Substance abuse programs SA, A, D, SD ● Prison expansion (R) SA, A, D, SD

Mandatory minimum sentencing laws require persons convicted of drug crimes to spend at least a minimum number of years in prison regardless of the person's circumstances. How do you feel about these laws? (circle one) (R)

23

Strong Agree, Agree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree

Please read before answering questions on the other side of this paper: A report commissioned under the “Controlled Substance Act of 1970” was released in 1972 claiming marijuana does not cause physical dependency and does not threaten public safety. The commission recommended marijuana be removed from the classification of a Schedule I illicit substance. Drugs (including marijuana) under a Schedule I classification are considered to have the highest potential for abuse and addiction, are not accepted for any medical use and are seen as unsafe to use even under the supervision of medical professionals. Marijuana remains to this day as a Schedule I narcotic drug.

Marijuana (other than medical) should remain classified as a Schedule I narcotic drug.Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree (R)

Marijuana (other than medical) should remain on the list of illegal narcotics1-Strong Agree, Agree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree (R)

Marijuana (other than medical) should be regulated at the same level as alcohol (21 and older).Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree

Marijuana (other than medical) should be regulated at the same level as tobacco (18 and older).Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree, Strongly Disagree

Gender: malefemaleother

What is the annual income of your family?$0-31,999$32,000-59,999$60,000-150,000$150,000+