With an understanding of how the sample population was collected for the purpose of this study it becomes imperative to provide a description of the general characteristics of the sample. Figure 1 indicates the chronological age distribution of the sample.
Figure 1. Age distribution
The mean age of the participants for the study is 33.59 years with a standard deviation of 8.48, while the sum of the sample ages is 2452. The age range was spread over 41 years with the youngest participant being 20 years old and the oldest being 61 with 41.1% of participants between the ages of 26 and 32 years old.
Table 3 represents the marital status of the participants.
Table 3 Marital Status
Marital Status N %
Single Married Divorced Widowed
69 2 1 1
94.5 2.7 1.4 1.4
A large majority (94.4%) of the participants were classified as single with only 2.7% being married and 1.4% of participants being divorced or widowed respectively. As the legal (customary and common law) classifications of various marital statuses were utilised, the
“single” category included individuals who had girlfriends or long term partners. The reason
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62
92
for utilising the legal definitions of marital status and thereby clustering these factors under the “single” category was for the sake of understanding as numerous inmates had long-term girlfriends who they considered a “wife” but no formal ceremony had taken place. It was determined that the inclusion of additional categories would only add to the difficulties in translation and participant understanding. Adding to family composition, the number of participants own children is presented in Table 4.
Table 4
Frequency Distribution of Number of Children of the Research Participants
Number of children N %
0 15 20.6
1 16 21.9
2 16 21.9
3 8 11
4 4 5.5
5 5 6.8
T 3 4.1
8 2 2.7
9 2 2.7
12 1 1.4
13 1 1.4
The most common frequencies for the number of own children were the no children, one child and two children categories with these categories collectively accounting for 64.3% of the total population. Individually, 20.5% of the population had no children and participants with one or two children each contributed to 21.9% of the sample respectively. The numbers of this factor ranged between zero and 13 with zero being the least amount of children and 13 being the highest amount of children recorded for a single participant.
In terms of ethnicity, the entire sample population consisted of participants who were black.
It must however be noted that the reason for this finding can be due to the ethnic composition of the rural Zululand area in which the study took place and is not representative of the entire offending population in South Africa. The cultural composition of the sample has also been presented in Table 5.
93 Table 5
Cultural group
Cultural Group N %
Xhosa 1 1.4
Zulu 71 97.2
Tonga 1 1.4
The vast majority of the sample population (97.3%) classified themselves as Zulus with only one Xhosa participant and one individual classifying himself as “Other”. The individual who classified himself as “Other” was from a small village in the Zululand area and identified himself as a Tonga. The overrepresentation of Zulus can once again be attributed to the area in which the study was located as the name suggests the Zululand area has a long history as Zulu territory. The home language information shows a similar distribution. As expected the language predominantly spoken at home by the participants was Zulu (98.6%) with only the Tonga participant selecting the “Other” classification for home language as he spoke Tonga.
Level of school education is presented in Table 6.
Table 6
Highest Level of School Education Obtained
Education N %
No schooling 3 4.1
Up to grade 4 9 12.3
Grade 5, 6 or 7 17 23.3
Grade 8 or 9 16 21.9
Grade 10 10 13.7
Grade 11 6 8.2
Grade 12 8 11
Trade 4 5.5
In terms of level of schooling completed by the participants, it was found that the most participants had either completed up to Grade five, six or seven (23.3%) or Grades eight or nine (21.9%). Only 4.1% of the participants had no schooling at all and 11% had completed grade 12. A further 5.5% of participants had continued their educational training beyond grade 12 with Trade certifications. The distribution for levels of education is graphically represented in Figure 2.
94 Figure 2. Highest level of school education completed
The number of siblings of the participants is presented in Table 7 together with the ranking of birth order presented in Table 8.
Table 7
Number of siblings
Siblings N %
0 4 5.5
1 4 5.5
2 7 9.6
3 7 9.6
4 9 12.3
5 9 12.3
6 10 13.7
7 7 9.6
8 2 2.7
9 7 9.6
10 3 4.1
11 1 1.4
14 2 2.7
15 1 1.4
Table 8 Birth Order
Birth Order N %
Only child 4 5.5
Oldest 19 26
Middle 33 45.2
Youngest 17 23.3
4%
12%
23%
22%
14%
8%
11%
6%
No Schooling Up to grade 4 Grade 5, 6 or 7 Grade 8 or 9 Grade 10 Grade 11 Grade 12 Trade
95
The participants were found to generally come from relatively large families with the highest percentage of participants having between four and six siblings. The highest percentage of participants had six siblings (13.7%), followed closely by participants with four and five siblings who contributed to 12.3% of the total each. Furthermore, the range of this factor was broad with the lowest score being zero and the highest number of siblings reaching 15. It was furthermore established that 45.2% of participants were also middle children in terms of birth order with 23.3% being the youngest and 26% being the oldest. The increased number of middle child classifications could be attributed to the large number of siblings as those who were not classified as oldest or youngest were clustered together into this category. Figure 3 provides a graphical representation of the birth order ranking.
Figure 3. Birth Order
Information regarding the frequency of participants’ exposure to the correctional environment and types of offences will be presented below. Table 9 provides information regarding the previous number of times participants had been incarcerated.
Table 9
Number of Times Incarcerated in a Correctional Centre
Time in prison N %
First 3 4.1
Second 18 24.7
Third 24 32.9
Fourth or more 28 38.3
It was established that 24 (32.9%) participants had been incarcerated twice before and were therefore serving their third sentence followed by 18 (24.7%) participants who were serving
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Only child Oldest Middle Youngest
96
their second sentence. Although the study required the participation of repeat offenders only, it was found that three (4.1%) of the participants were serving their first sentence. This was however due to having been given suspended sentences for previous offences, hence qualifying them as recidivists and therefore able to remain a part of the study. The remaining 28 participants (38.4%) who were serving their fourth sentence or more accounted for the largest portion of the sample for this factor.
Tables 10 and 11 contain information regarding the type of offences the participants are currently serving sentences for and have previously been sentenced for respectively. The South African Department of Corrections currently uses five categories to classify offences namely aggressive, sexual, economic, narcotics and “other”. In this study the offences included in the aggressive category were murder, attempted murder, common assault, assault with intent to do grievous bodily harm, armed robbery, common robbery and robbery with aggravated circumstances. Sexual offences included rape and attempted rape whereas narcotics included possession of and dealing in marijuana. Economic offences included common theft, stock theft, car theft, shoplifting, housebreaking and fraud. The offences categorised as “other” included those which could not be classified in the previous categories and therefore included possession of illegal firearm, parole violations, escape, breaking of protection orders, arson, intimidation and malicious damage to property.
Table 10
Frequency Distribution of Current Offences
Type of Offence N %
Aggressive 21 28.8
Sexual 6 8.2
Economic 43 58.9
Narcotics 1 1.4
Other 7 9.6
The distribution values in Table 10 do not add up to 100% as some participants committed multiple offences both within a single offending category and between different categories.
Economic offences were found to be the most commonly committed offence amongst participants at 58.9%, followed by aggressive offences at 28.8%. Representation of sexual, narcotic and other offences were relatively low in comparison with all three categories collectively representing less than 20% of the sample’s offences.
97 Table 11
Frequency Distribution of Past Offences
Type of Offence N %
Aggressive 35 47.9
Sexual 4 5.5
Economic 43 58.9
Narcotics 6 8.2
Other 12 16.4
With a number of offenders having been sentenced on more than two occasions, the number of offenders committing offences across offence categories increased. However, similar to the current offence results, economic offences also accounted for 58.9% of the sample’s previous offences. Aggressive offences were committed by 47.9% of participants followed by 16.4% of offenders committing “other” offences such as parole violations, breaking of protection orders, escape, arson and malicious damage to property. The least common offences were sexual and narcotic offences which accounted for 5.5% and 8.2% of previous offences respectively. The distribution values in Table 13 also do not add up to 100% as some participants had previously committed multiple offences both within a single offending category and between different categories. Figure 4 shows the percentages of each offending category for both current and past offences.
Figure 4. Percentages of Current and Past Offence Categories
Participants were also requested to provide information about the time dimension (length) of their respective prison sentences. Table 12 contains information about the length of the participant’s current sentences.
0 20 40 60 80
Other Narcotics Economic Sexual Aggressive
Current Past
98 Table 12
Length of Current Sentence
Length of current sentence N %
3 to 6 months 7 9.6
7 to 11 months 3 4.1
1 to 2 years 9 12.3
2 to 3 years 24 32.9
4 to 5 years 4 5.5
More than 5 years 26 35.6
The length of the participants sentences seem to be skewed toward lengthier sentences as opposed to shorter sentences with 74% of participants (n=54) having been sentenced to incarceration for a period of two years and longer. Of the remaining 26%, participants with three to six month sentences constitute 9.6% (n=7), seven to eleven months constitute 4.1%
(n=3) and participants serving sentences of one to two years constitute the remaining 12.3%
(n=9). The length of time participants had been incarcerated for their offense/s at the time of assessment was also recorded and presented in Table 13.
Table 13
Time Currently Served in Corrections
Time currently spent in prison N %
Less than 6 months 26 35.6
6 to 12 months 17 23.4
12 to 18 months 5 6.8
19 to 24 months 3 4.1
More than 2 years 22 30.1
Lastly it was found that the length of time participants had spent in corrections clustered on either end of the scale. 35.6% of participants had spent less than six months in the correctional centre at the time of assessment whereas 30.1% had been there for more than two years. This was followed by 23.3% of participants who had been in the correctional centre for between six and 12 months and those who had been there for between 12 and 24 months who collectively consisted of 10.9% of the total sample (n=8).