Rehabilitation and Welfare of Inmates in Nigeria Prisons: A Case of Selected Prisons in Southwestern Nigeria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study assessed the extent of implementation and administration of rehabilitation programme and also examined the welfare of inmates in selected Prisons in Southwestern Nigeria in the study area with a view to enhancing policies/programmes of prison service in the country. This study employed both primary and secondary data. Primary data were obtained through the administration of questionnaire on inmates to elicit information on their well-being. The simple random sampling method was used to select 204 respondents which constituted 10% of the total population (2042) of prison inmates in the purposively selected prisons (Ibadan, Akure and Abeokuta) in Southwestern Nigeria. Focus group discussion was held with 8 ex-convicts and 5 inmates’ relatives. The secondary sources of information that were employed included relevant official publications and records from Nigerian Prisons Service, journal articles, periodicals and internet sources. Data collected were tabulated and analyzed using percentage and frequency as descriptive; and Chi-square as inferential statistics. The study finds that administration of rehabilitation programme of Nigerian Prisons Service was not effectively implemented. This was attested to by the obtained result ( χ 2= 1.101). The consequence of this is that the inmates will not be able to provide for their daily needs on release and will find it difficult to integrate into the community. The temptation to take to crime is higher than before. Equally, the study found that the inmate’s welfare in the selected prisons was not well taken care of, as this was confirmed by the obtained result ( χ 2 = 1.500). The study concluded that administration of inmates’ rehabilitation and welfare programmes by Nigerian Prisons Service in Southwestern Nigeria was ineffective and needed to be improved in order to achieve the goal for which it was established.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".