Literacy in Corrections

Kenneth Mentor and Molly Wilkinson

Millions of individuals are housed in correctional facilities. Literacy skills are important to these individuals and can aid in the successful functioning of the institutions. Many prison jobs require literacy skills and inmates are often required to fill out forms to make requests. Reading and writing provide productive options for passing time while in prison. Letters to family and friends are a vital link to the outside world. Literacy skills are also important for those who will leave prison and attempt to reintegrate into the community. Jobs, continued education, and many social opportunities depend on the ability to read and write – regardless of whether an individual is in prison.

Research consistently demonstrates that quality education is one of the most effective forms of crime prevention. Educational skills help deter people from committing criminal acts. As a result, educational programs decrease the likelihood that people will return to crime, and prison. In the United States, a “get tough on crime” mentality has resulted in a push to incarcerate, punish, and limit the activities of prisoners. Over the last 10 years political pressure has led to the elimination of funding for many corrections education programs. Many programs that have been demonstrated as extraordinarily effective have been completely eliminated.

Literacy programs continue in many correctional facilities in spite of program cuts. These programs meet with little political resistance, in part because they can be run at a relatively low cost. In addition, state and federal guidelines that encourage the development of literacy skills typically apply to all citizens, including prisoners. Prison literacy programs also benefit from volunteer efforts of organizations and individuals.

Need for Literacy Programs

The total number of prisoners in federal or state facilities was almost 1.4 million in 2000. Nearly 600,000 inmates were released in 2000, either unconditionally or under conditions of parole. Many of those released will be rearrested and will return to incarceration. Costs of this cycle of incarceration and reincarceration are very high. Corrections education has the potential to greatly reduce these costs. One study indicates that those who benefited from correctional education recidivated 29% less often that those who did not have educational opportunities while in the correctional institution (Steurer, Smith, and Tracy, 2001). When we consider the high cost of imprisonment, the increasing prison population, and the increasing number of individuals released from prison at the end of their sentences, literacy programs provide a cost effective opportunity to reduce crime and the costs of crime.

Illiteracy is perhaps the greatest common denominator in correctional facilities. Data collected from the National Adult Literacy Survey (NALS) show that literacy levels among inmates is considerably lower than for the general population. For example, of the 5 levels measured by the NALS, 70% of inmates scored at the lowest two levels of literacy (below 4^th grade). Other research suggests that 75% of inmates are illiterate (at the 12^th grade level) and 19% are completely illiterate. Forty percent are functionally illiterate. In real world terms, this means that the individual would be unable to write a letter explaining a billing error. In comparison, the national illiteracy rate for adult Americans stands at 4%, with 21% functionally illiterate.

A related concern is that prisoners have a higher proportion of learning disabilities than the general population. Estimates of learning disability are as high as 75-90% for juvenile offenders. Low literacy levels and high rates of learning disabilities have contributed to high dropout rates. Nationwide, over 70% of all people entering state correctional facilities have not completed high school, with 46% having had some high school education and 16.4% having had no high school education at all. Since there is a strong link between low levels of education and high rates of criminal activity, it is logical to assume that high dropout rates will lead to higher crime rates.

Prison Literacy Programs

The correctional facility provides a controlled education setting for prisoners, many of whom are motivated students. However, the prison literacy educator faces many challenges. Students in these programs evidence a wide range of potential and have had varying educational experiences. The educator’s challenge is compounded by the uniqueness of prison culture and the need for security. Prisons adhere to strict routines, which may not be ideal in an educational setting. Inmates are often moved from one facility to another. This movement interrupts, or ends, the individual’s educational programming. These structural issues are accompanied by social factors that can further limit learning opportunities. Peer pressure may discourage attendance or achievement. Prison administrators have varying degrees of support for education – especially if they see education as a threat to the primary functions of security and control.

In spite of the challenges, examples in the literature demonstrate that programs based on current thinking about literacy and sound adult education practices can be effective in prison settings. Successful prison literacy programs are learner centered, recognizing different learning styles, cultural backgrounds, and multiple literacies (Newman et al. 1993). Successful programs typically use learner strengths to help them shape their own learning. Historically, literacy education has been offered to the general population by two volunteer agencies: Literacy Volunteers of America (LVA) and Laubach Literacy International. Both have a presence in correctional facilities through trained volunteers and staff. However, because educational programming depends on the philosophy and policies of the correctional facility, there is little data to suggest uniformity in delivery of literacy services to inmates.

Testing and curricula are two common elements in many prison literacy programs. Several standardized reading tests are available to literacy instructors. Besides the Test of Adults in Basic Education (TABE), two other tests are commonly used. One, the Grey Oral Reading Test, measures the fluency and comprehension of the learner. For example, it determines the learner’s ability to recognize common written words such as “car,” “be,” “house,” “do” by sight or in context. A second commonly used test for literacy skills is the National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NAAL). This test is divided into five levels ranging from assessing the learner’s ability to fill out a deposit slip (Level I), determining the difference in price between two items (Level II) to demonstrating proficiency in interpreting complex written passages (Level V). These tests can be used to assess needs, track progress, and demonstrate success to the learner and to administrators who may be called on to support the program.

Several literacy curricula are available to prison educators. The National Institute for Literacy developed standards for literacy as a component of lifelong learning. This program focuses on skill acquisition in three areas: worker, family member, and citizen. The standards are broken down into four general areas with several sub-areas. For example, “communication” is broken into the following sub-areas: 1) reading with understanding; 2) conveying ideas in writing; 3) speaking so others can understand; 4) listening actively; and 5) observing critically. The curriculum utilizes activities that are relevant to the learner’s life to develop skills in reading. Laubach Literacy offers curricula that can be used in classroom settings or in one-on-one instruction. “Reading Is Fundamental” and “Project Read” are examples of federally funded literacy programs that offer text-based curriculum.

Although there are similarities in each of these programs, data does not suggest a standardized delivery method for literacy programs in correctional facilities. The programs generally include reading, writing, calculating, listening, speaking, and problem-solving as core parts of a literacy curriculum. In general, successful programs are learner centered, participatory, sensitive to the prison culture, and linked to post-release services.

Conclusion

Since the 70s, the correctional philosophy has shifted from a rehabilitative to a punitive approach. As a result, today’s correctional facilities are viewed primarily as a means of separating criminals from the public. Although prisons have become increasingly punitive, correctional facilities remain responsible for addressing literacy problems among the corrections population. The logic behind providing literacy services in prison is that all of society benefits by allowing access to educational resources that are available to everyone else. As such, literacy programs should not be seen as “special treatment” for prisoners. The federal government encourages literacy skill improvement in all entities, including prisons, that receive federal aid and at least 26 states have enacted mandatory educational requirements for certain populations. These policies demonstrate the importance placed on efforts to improve literacy skills.

Although there are challenges, literacy programs can provide relatively inexpensive educational program within correctional institutions. When we consider the high cost of imprisonment, coupled with a growing prison population, literacy programs provide a cost effective opportunity to improve the job related skills of incarcerated individuals. A large percentage of these individuals will be released from prison and will be expected to successfully, and lawfully, reintegrate in our communities. Literacy education provides a large payoff to the community in terms of crime reduction and employment opportunities for ex-offenders. Investments in these programs have been confirmed as wise, and cost effective, public policy.

References and Suggested Reading

American Corrections Association (2002). http://www.aca.org

Bureau of Justice Statistics (2002). “Key crime and justice facts at a glance.” http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance.htm

Haigler, K. O.; Harlow, C.; O’Connor, P.; and Campbell, A. (1994). Literacy Behind Prison Walls. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Kerka, S. (1995). “Prison Literacy Programs.” Eric Digest no. 159. Columbus, OH:

Kollhoff, M. (2002). “Reflections of a Kansas Corrections Educator.” The Journal of Correctional Education, 53(2), June 2002, 44-45.

Laubach Literacy Oranization (2002). http://www.laubach.org

Leone, P.E. and Meisel, S. (1997). “Improving educational services for students in detention and confinement facilities.” Childrens’ Legal Rights Journal, 17(1), 2-12.

LoBuglio, S. (2001). “Time to reframe politics and practices in correctional education.” In J. Comings, B. garner and C. Smith (Eds.), Annual Review of Adult Learning and Literacy, Vol.2. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

National Adult Literacy and Learning Disabilities Center (1996). “Correctional education: A worthwhile investment.” Linkages: Linking Literacy and Learning Disabilities. Washington, DC: The National Institute for Literacy, 3(2), Fall 1996.

National Institute for Literacy (1999). “Equipped for the future standards.” http://www.nifl.gov/lincs/collections/eff/eff.html

Newman, A. P.; Lewis, W.; and Beverstock, C. (1993). Prison Literacy. Philadelphia, PA: National Center on Adult Literacy.

Paul, M. (1991). When Words are Behind Bars. Kitchener, Ontario: Core Literacy.

Project READ. (1978). “To make a difference.” In M.S. Brunner (Ed.1993), Reduce recidivism and increased employment opportunity through research-based reading instruction (pp. 20-27). Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Quinn, M.M. Rutherford, R.B., Leone, P.E. (2001). “Students with disabilities in correctional facilities.” ERIC Digest no. E621.

Rutherford, R.B., Nelson, C.M., and Wolford, B.I. (1985). “Special education in the most restrictive environment: Correctional Special Education.” Journal of Special Education, 19, 59-71.

Steurer, S., Smith, L., Tracy, A. (2001). “Three State Recidivism Study”. Prepared for the Office of Correctional Education, US Department of Education. Lanham, MD: Correctional Education Association.

Tolbert, M. (2002). “State Correctional Education Programs.” Washington, D.C.: National Institute for Literacy. http://www.nifl.gov/nifl/policy/st_correction_02.pdf

The GED and Corrections

Kenneth W. Mentor
University of North Carolina Wilmington

The General Educational Development (GED) Exam assesses skills and general knowledge that are acquired through a four-year high school education. The exam changes periodically, most recently in January 2002, in an effort to keep up with knowledge and skills needed in our society. The exam covers math, science, social studies, reading, and writing. All of the test items are multiple choice except for a section in the writing exam that requires GED candidates to write an essay. The complete exam takes just under eight hours to complete and is typically broken down into several sections that can be taken over time.

Research that assesses the value of the GED examines employment and the likelihood of continuing with formal education after earning the GED. Scholars have also examined whether the GED is equivalent to a high school diploma. Past research indicates that employees with a GED are not the labor market equivalents of regular high school graduates. Those who leave school with very low skills benefit from obtaining a GED. However, this advantage is lessened for those who have obtained other employment-related skills. The message gained from much of the research is that it is best to remain in school. While the GED has value, it should not be seen as a replacement for four years of high school.

The GED and Corrections

There has been little research examining the impact of obtaining a GED in corrections settings. The majority of studies indicate that earning GED while in prison reduces the likelihood of returning to prison. However, some researchers have criticized the methodology used in studies that focus on recidivism since it may be argued that those who choose, or are chosen, for corrections education programs benefit most from the experience since they have already indicated a willingness to “stay out of trouble.” Arguably, these are the people who will benefit most from any efforts to increase their chances of success. It may be difficult to blame corrections education programs that focus on those most likely to benefit from the program.

Another problem regarding an effort to demonstrate the value of a prison GED, in comparison to a high school diploma or GED earned in a traditional setting, is related to the complexity of factors that surround an individual in the labor market. It is possible that the impact of earning a GED in prison is not great enough to overcome the negative effect incarceration can have on employment opportunities. Employers may be reluctant to hire someone who has served time in prison. In fact, a felony conviction can disqualify an individual for employment in some professions. Given the barriers placed before individuals who seek employment after prison, it may be difficult to demonstrate the impact of a single educational experience.

Although the employment related impacts of the GED earned corrections settings are difficult to assess, research has consistently demonstrated that corrections education can significantly reduce recidivism. A 1987 Bureau of Prisons report found that the more education an inmate received, the lower the rate of recidivism. Inmates who earned college degrees were the least likely to reenter prison. For inmates who had some high school, the rate of recidivism was 54.6 percent. For college graduates the rate dropped to 5.4 percent. Similarly, a Texas Department of Criminal Justice study found that while the state’s overall rate of recidivism was 60 percent, for holders of college associate degrees it was 13.7 percent. The recidivism rate for those with Bachelor’s degrees was 5.6 percent. The rate for those with Master’s degrees was 0 percent. The Changing Minds study, which focused on the benefits of college courses in a women’s prison, calculated that reductions in reincarceration would save approximately $900,000 per 100 student prisoners over a two-year period. If we project these savings to the 600,000 prison releases in a single year, the saving are enormous.

In addition to gains related to recidivism, prison-based education programs provide benefits related to the functioning of prisons. These programs provide incentives to inmates in a setting in which rewards are relatively limited. These classes also provide socialization opportunities with similarly motivated students and educators who serve as positive role models. Educational endeavors also keep students busy and provide intellectual stimulation in an environment that can be difficult to manage when prisoners break rules in search of an activity that breaks the monotony of prison life. Many prisons provide incentives for inmates who participate in corrections education. Opportunities to earn privileges within the facility, increased visitation, and the accumulation or loss of “good time” that can lead to earlier parole, are used to motivate the student while providing incentives for appropriate behavior within the facility.

Prison educators face many challenges. Inmates who choose to enroll in corrections-based courses are not necessarily any different from students who enroll in GED courses in other settings. The range of abilities can include very gifted students, students who face challenges, and students who have various motives for enrolling in the course. However, the educational setting is very different. Challenges faced by corrections educators are compounded by the uniqueness of prison culture and the need for security. Prisons adhere to strict routines that may not be ideal in an educational setting. In addition, inmates are often moved from one facility to another. This movement interrupts, or ends, the individual’s educational programming. These structural issues are accompanied by social factors that can further limit learning opportunities. The student may be very motivated to earn an education but he or she remains in an environment in which conflicting demands may limit the opportunity to act on that motivation. For example, other prisoners may not support the individual’s educational efforts.

Prison administrators may also have varying degrees of support for education – especially if they see education as a threat to the primary functions of security and control. GED courses may be seen as a burden to prison administrators who believe their primary goal is confinement. However, in many cases administrators are required to provide educational opportunities. At least 26 states have mandatory corrections education laws that mandate education for a certain amount of time or until a set level of achievement is reached. Enrollment in correctional education is also required in many states if the inmate is under a certain age, as specified by that state’s compulsory education law. The Federal Bureau of Prisons has also implemented a policy that requires inmates who do not have a high school diploma or a GED to participate in literacy programs for a minimum of 240 hours, or until they obtain their GED.

States typically provide corrections education funding based, in part, on success as measured by the rate of GED completion. In addition to state funding, the federal government provides support to state correctional education through the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act (AEFLA), which became law in 1998. However, funding often fails to keep pace with needs. Legislation over the past 20 years, a time in which the prison population has grown at unprecedented levels, has resulted in significant cuts in corrections education funding. This has resulted in the elimination of many programs. Ironically, the “get tough on crime” mentality resulted in the elimination of many programs that were effective in reducing crime.

Conclusion

Studies consistently indicate that an individual who benefits from education while in prison is less likely to return to prison than someone who has not had the benefits of education while in prison. There is some question as to why corrections-based education leads to lower recidivism. This is a complex process, and difficult to measure, but it appears that the ability to find and hold a job consistently functions to reduce the chance that an individual will commit crime. Individuals who increase their education also increase their opportunities. Individuals who take classes while in prison improve their chances of attaining and keeping employment after release. As a result, they are less likely to commit additional crimes that would lead to their return to prison.

The benefits of earning a GED while in prison are difficult to demonstrate. Individuals may find it difficult to obtain employment after serving time in prison. Potential employers may benefit from education regarding the realities of employing someone who has completed his or her punishment and is attempting to return to a productive life outside prison walls. It may also be time to question the belief that tougher prisons, with limited efforts to educate or otherwise rehabilitate offenders, reduce crime. The “get tough on crime” mentality has resulted in the elimination of many corrections education programs. Individuals in prison are typically burdened with many educational deficiencies. In many cases the lack of skills limited options, resulting in criminal acts. Upon release from prison, with limited education and job experience that is well below the level gained by those outside prison, it is no surprise that many individuals will head down the path that originally led them to prison.

FURTHER READING

Batiuk, M, Moke, P.and Rountree, P. (1997). “Crime and Rehabilitation: Correctional Education as an Agent of Change – A Research Note,” Justice Quarterly, 14(1).

Bureau of Justice Statistics (2002). “Key crime and justice facts at a glance.” http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance.htm

Fine, M., et.al. (2001) Changing Minds: The Impact of College in a Maximum Security Prison. The Graduate Center of the City University of New York. http://www.gc.cuny.edu/folio/index.htm.

Gerber, J. and Fritsch, E. (1993). Prison Education and Offender Behavior: A Review of the Scientific Literature. Huntsville, TX: Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.

Greenwood, P.W., Model, K.E., Rydell, C.P. and Chiesa, J. (1996). Diverting children from a life of crime: Measuring costs and benefits. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.

Haigler, K. O.; Harlow, C.; O’Connor, P.; and Campbell, A. (1994). Literacy Behind Prison Walls. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Harer, M. (1995). “Prison Education Program Participation and Recidivism: A Test of the Normalization Hypothesis,” Washington, DC: Federal Bureau of Prisons.

LoBuglio, S. (2001). “Time to reframe politics and practices in correctional education.” In J. Comings, B. garner and C. Smith (Eds.), Annual Review of Adult Learning and Literacy, Vol.2. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Murnane, R. J., Willett, J. B., & Boudett, K. P. (1999). Do male dropouts benefit from obtaining a GED, postsecondary education, and training? Evaluation Review, 23, 475-504.

Steurer, S., Smith, L., Tracy, A. (2001). “Three State Recidivism Study”. Prepared for the Office of Correctional Education, US Department of Education. Lanham, MD: Correctional Education Association.

Tolbert, M. (2002). “State Correctional Education Programs.” Washington, D.C.: National Institute for Literacy. http://www.nifl.gov/nifl/policy/st_correction_02.pdf

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Correctional Education (1994). “The Impact of Correctional Education on Recidivism 1988-1994,” Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

ESL in Corrections

Molly Wilkinson and Kenneth Mentor

English as a Second Language (ESL) is the term used to describe English language instruction for nonnative English speakers. Another term used to describe the non-proficient English speaker is Limited English Proficiency (LEP). All prisoners in the U.S. should be able to demonstrate proficiency in English.  If not, they must enroll in ESL or LEP instruction.  In addition to providing language skills needed in the institution, corrections-based ESL and LEP instruction seeks to provide the learner with the basic language skills necessary to perform adequately in general education classes.

Of the 1.4 million inmates in federal or state prisons, 8% are non-US citizens. The number of inmates with limited English speaking ability is much higher. According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, 31.7% of inmates held in federal facilities are classified as Hispanic, 1.6% as Native American, and 1.8% as Asian. These numbers vary greatly by state. For example, 53% of New Mexico inmates are Hispanic. New York has the second highest percentage of Hispanic inmates with over 32%. Five other states have Hispanic prison populations of over 25%. Although Spanish is the most common non-English language in prison, the ethnic background of inmates is changing in ways that reflect recent trends in immigration. As a result, we can expect an even wider range of languages in state and federal prisons. Due of a growing number of illegal immigrants, in some cases entire facilities are being filled with non-English speakers. In this case the language needs are so complex that ESL instruction is being supplemented, or replaced, with electronic translation technologies.

Assessing and Teaching

The National Assessment of Adult Literacy (1992) reports that on a scale of one (low) to five (high), over half of nonnative speakers consistently scored below Level 3. Level 2 was the average level for Hispanics born in the United States, while level 1 was the average for immigrants from Hispanic countries. Level 3 was the average for Asian-Pacific Islander born in the United States, compared to Level 2 for immigrants from Asia and the Pacific Islands.

Several standardized and commercial tests are used to determine the proficiency level of a potential ESL student. Among these are Test of Adult Basic Education (TABE), Adult Basic Learning Exam (ABLE), Basic English Skills Test (BEST), CASAS ESL Appraisal, and the Henderson-Moriarty ESL Placement (HELP).  Some of these tests measure the proficiency of the learner in his or her native language to provide a comparison with the learner’s aptitude in English. Other tests measure oral abilities such as listening and speaking (the first two levels of English acquisition), while others measure writing and reading as well (the upper levels of English acquisition).  The results of most tests need to be interpreted in order properly to classify the learner by level. Training on interpretation is required for best results, yet, due to expenses, such training is often not provided to the instructor. As a result, in many cases the learner is not properly classified before enrolling in ESL classes.

Several curricula are available to the nonnative speaker.  Some of these, provided by general education material providers, include student workbooks, learning tapes, and instructor manuals. Two other curricula commonly used and available for correctional facilities are “Crossroads Café” and “I Can Read.” These programs include videos that the student can use without support from an instructor or tutor. The videos show the learner the written target word, pronounce the word, and connect the word to phrases or objects.

Challenges

Regardless of the curricula chosen, language mastery depends in part on the ability of the learner to interact with others to practice new vocabulary and speech patterns. This is not an easy task for the incarcerated student. Procedural policies of many facilities do not provide for adequate interaction, slowing down the acquisition process. Funding issues in correctional facilities create another problem. Corrections education programs typically have limited educational funds for materials. Administrators are forced to prioritize their expenditures. As a result, materials purchased for use in correctional education programs are concentrated on English-proficient students. This leaves the limited English proficient inmate without adequate resources to improve his or her language skills.

On average, it takes 5-7 years for a nonnative speaker of English to become accomplished at most communication tasks. The minimum requirement for a person literate in their native language is 750-1000 hours of skills development to satisfy basic needs and to have limited social interaction in English. Due to the nature of correctional facilities, many inmates are transferred or released before that time period has elapsed. As a result, it may be difficult for prisoners to complete their ESL education in a correctional facility. However, even if basic language skills are not fully developed, one of the goals of the ESL educator is to help the individual acquire language skills necessary for survival in the prison society. This can be accomplished in a relatively short period of time.

CURRENT PROGRAMS AND ISSUES IN ESL TRAINING

Many different ESL programs are utilized in correctional facilities. Several states provide ESL training as part of their adult basic education programming. Since correctional educational literacy programs vary from facility to facility, it is difficult to discover what services are provided to inmates. Each state, and in some cases each facility, feel different pressures to develop and administer ESL and LEP programs. Varying levels of integration with other corrections education programs can also lead to problems with information sharing that could lead to increased standardization of delivery.

Since funding for ESL programs does not typically fall into state mandated education budgets, ESL specific programs must compete with state funds allocated to general education within the corrections departments. As a result, many facilities rely on outside volunteers or contractors to provide ESL instruction. Community volunteers and school agencies, such as community colleges, offer the majority of ESL programs to the general population. In addition, Laubach International and Literacy Volunteers of America have historically offered special training for low-language proficiency learners and currently offer materials and guidelines for instruction in corrections-based ESL services.

Most ESL students are grouped with English-proficient students in general classrooms. Many of these students drop out of correctional education for the same reasons they do so in general public facilities’ education. Common reasons include problems related to grasping the language vocabulary, understanding the sub-culture expressed through language, and learning the conversational patterns used in normal speaking. Since speech patterns vary among ethnic groups, and these vary from Standard English speech patterns, students are likely to make several mistakes speaking English as a Second language. In addition to the inherent difficulty of learning a new language, pedagogical approaches on the part of educators may diminish their effectiveness as teachers to non-English speakers. Many of these problems can be addressed through the development of ESL specific programs or by encouraging educators to work to participate in opportunities for ESL training.

Conclusion

Data indicate that corrections education is an effective tool in the effort to reduce recidivism. Less evidence is available regarding a link between ESL programs and crime reduction. We know that correctional institutions function better when prisoners are encouraged to live together and follow the rules. As with other forms of corrections education, ESL and LEP programs provide opportunities for prisoners to learn to “do their time” in a productive way.

Many benefits of ESL instruction are difficult to assess. For example, it is hard to measure large scale improvement in the ability to effectively function within correctional facilities. Corrections education is consistently shown to be very effective in efforts to reduce recidivism and improve employability after prison. Although the relationship of ESL instruction and crime control has not been clearly demonstrated, there is no reason to believe that ESL instruction does not have the same potential. In many cases the incarcerated individual will not be able to fully participate in corrections education without first learning to speak English. As such, the benefits of education are denied to those with limited English skills.

The corrections industry, like the justice system as a whole, relies on established procedures, policies, and laws. The incarcerated individual, and the institutions in which individuals are incarcerated, each benefit from efforts to assure that policies and procedures are effectively communicated. These policies and practices are often intended to protect the rights of those who interact with the system. Those who do not speak the dominant language of this system are at a distinct disadvantage. Although general impacts are difficult to assess, ESL instruction has the potential to reduce this disadvantage and minimize the loss of rights that may occur when an individual is unable to actively participate in processes that have serious implications.

See also: prison education, GED, Adult continuing education, foreign nationals

FURTHER READING 

Bureau of Justice Statistics (2003). “Key crime and justice facts at a glance.” U.S. Department of Justice. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance.htm

Burt, M. and Keenan, F. (1995). “Adult ESL Learner Assessment: purposes and tools.” National Center for ESL Literacy Education. ERIC Digest No. EDO-LE-95-08.

Fillmore, L.W. and Snow, C.E. (2000). “What teachers need to know about language.” U.S. Department of Education: Educational Research and Improvement. ERIC Digest No. ED-99-CO-0008

Haigler, K. O.; Harlow, C.; O’Connor, P.; and Campbell, A. (1994). Literacy Behind Prison Walls. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Heilman, K. and Lawson, K.M. (2000). “Facilitating communication with limited- and non-english-speaking offenders.” Corrections Today, Dec. 2000.

Office of Science and Technology of the National Institute of Justice (2000). “Do You Speak English?” Corrections Today, Dec. 2000.

Richiusa, G. (1997). “Language barriers: Teaching ESL in the Corrections System.” American Language Review, Nov/Dec 1997, 1, (5).

College Courses in Prison

Kenneth W. Mentor
University of North Carolina Wilmington

Research indicates that prison college programs are among the best tools for reducing recidivism. Individuals who take college courses while in prison improve their chances of attaining and keeping employment after release. They are less likely to commit additional crimes that would lead to their return to prison. The effectiveness of these programs led to widespread adoption for several years. However, nearly all programs were discontinued during the 1990’s and few college programs are currently active in prison settings. The history of these programs, and the debate about their merits, demonstrates the counterproductive effect that political influence can have on efforts to combat crime.

In 1965, only 12 post-secondary correctional education programs were operating in the United States. By 1982 there were 350 programs with approximately 27,000 inmates, representing almost 9% of the total prison population at the time, receiving some form of post-secondary education (Wolford and Littlefield, 1985). The rapid increase in these programs began in 1965 when Congress passed Title IV of the Higher Education Act. This Act permitted inmates, and other low income students, to apply for Pell grants to be used for college courses.

In addition to increased educational opportunities for prisoners, the expansion of these programs provided many opportunities for research. The success of these programs was typically measured by two factors – the rate of re-arrest and the individual’s ability to obtain and maintain employment upon release. Results consistently indicated that higher education reduces an individual’s chances of returning to crime. Individuals who benefited from college courses in prison also found better jobs and held these jobs for longer periods of time. It is clear that these factors work together to reduce recidivism – those more education find stable employment which makes them less likely to commit crime (Batiuk, Moke, and Rountree, 1997).

Prisoners applied for Pell grants under the same criteria as those outside prison. Pell grants are non-competitive, need-based federal funds that are available to all qualifying low-income individuals who plan to attend college degree programs. For qualifying individuals in correctional facilities, the average Pell grant award was less than $1,300 per year. The total percentage of the program’s annual budget that was spent on inmate higher education was 1/10 of 1%. Although the cost was relatively low, the idea of providing Pell grants to prisoners was somewhat controversial and some argued for the elimination of these grants.

Despite evidence supporting the connection between higher education and lowered recidivism, the U.S. Congress included a provision in the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 which eliminated Pell grants for prisoners. Politicians argued that grants to inmates were provided at the expense of law-abiding students. This flawed argument, coupled with a belief that prison life was too “soft,” resulted in the elimination of Pell grants to prisoners. Ironically, the “get tough on crime” mentality had eliminated an extremely effective crime reduction tool.

The elimination of Pell grants had a devastating effect. In 1990, there were 350 higher education programs for inmates. By 1997 only 8 programs remained. In the 1993-94 school year over 25,000 students in correctional facilities were recipients of Pell grants. Although Pell grants were not the only source of revenue for these programs, the grants provided a predictable flow of money that was relied upon for the continued functioning of programs. Since there was no source for replacement funds, programs were forced to abandon efforts to provide college courses in prison. In nearly every case, the individual’s education abruptly ended as funds were denied.

Ironically, in the 1990’s we also began to see a dollar-for-dollar tradeoff between corrections and education spending. New York, for example, steadily increased its Department of Corrections budget by 76 percent to $761 million. During the same period, the state decreased funding to university systems by 28 percent, to $615 million. Much of the increase in corrections spending was the result of longer prison terms and the need for increased prison construction. Research by the RAND Corporation demonstrates that crime prevention is more cost-effective than building prisons and that of all crime prevention methods; education is the most cost-effective (Greenwood, 1996). Policies that focused on increasingly punitive incarceration, for longer periods of time, were not having the desired impact on crime prevention.

Benefits of Corrections Education

In 2000, the total number of prisoners in federal or state facilities was almost 1.4 million. Nearly 600,000 inmates were released in 2000, either unconditionally or under conditions of parole. Many of those released will be rearrested and will return to prison. Costs of this cycle of incarceration and reincarceration are very high. Corrections education has the potential to greatly reduce these costs. For example, one study indicated that those who benefited from correctional education recidivated 29% less often that those who did not have educational opportunities while in the correctional institution (Steurer, Smith, and Tracy, 2001). Even small reductions in recidivism can save millions of dollars in costs associated with keeping the recidivist offender in prison for longer periods of time. Additional costs are apparent when we consider that the individual, had he or she not committed another crime, would be working, paying taxes, and making a positive contribution to the economy. When we add the reduction of costs, both financial and emotional, to victims of crime, the benefits are even greater. Finally, the justice system as a whole, including police and courts, can save a great deal of money when the crime rate is reduced.

A 1987 Bureau of Prisons report found that the more education an inmate received, the lower the rate of recidivism. Inmates who earned college degrees were the least likely to reenter prison. For inmates who had some high school, the rate of recidivism was 54.6 percent. For college graduates the rate dropped to 5.4 percent. Similarly, a Texas Department of Criminal Justice study found that while the state’s overall rate of recidivism was 60 percent, for holders of college associate degrees it was 13.7 percent. The recidivism rate for those with Bachelor’s degrees was 5.6 percent. The rate for those with Master’s degrees was 0 percent.

Changing Minds: The Impact of College in a Maximum-Security Prison (Fine et. al, 2001) was the first major study to examine the impact of college in prison since Pell grants were eliminated. This study was conducted at Bedford Hills Correctional Facility, New York’s only maximum-security women’s prison. The Changing Minds study demonstrated that college prison programs can save taxpayers millions of dollars. Evidence from this study demonstrated that college prison programs transforms lives, reduces recidivism, creates safer prisons and communities, and significantly reduces the need for tax dollars spent on prisons.

The Changing Minds study found that only 7.7% of the inmates who took college courses at Bedford Hills returned to prison after release, while 29.9% of the inmates who did not participate in the college program were reincarcerated. The study calculates that this reduction in reincarceration would save approximately $900,000 per 100 student prisoners over a two-year period. If we project these savings to the 600,000 prison releases in a single year, the saving are enormous. When we consider the high cost of imprisonment, the increasing prison population, and the increasing number of individuals released from prison at the end of their sentences, education programs provide a cost effective opportunity to reduce crime and the costs of crime.

Challenges

The correctional facility provides a controlled educational setting for prisoners, many of whom are motivated students. Students in these programs evidence a wide range of potential and have had varying educational experiences. However, prison educators face many challenges. Inmates who choose to enroll in college courses are not necessarily any different from the typical university student. As in any college level course, the range of abilities can include very gifted students, students who face challenges, and students who have various motives for enrolling in college courses.

The educator’s challenge is compounded by the uniqueness of prison culture and the need for security. Prisons adhere to strict routines. These routines may not be ideal in an educational setting. College programs may also adhere to schedules that conflict with the requirements of correctional institutions. Inmates are often moved from one facility to another. This movement interrupts, or ends, the individual’s educational programming. These structural issues are accompanied by social factors that can further limit learning opportunities. Prison culture can be very different in different facilities, or even in different parts of a single facility. For example, other prisoners may not support the educational efforts of prisoners. Prison administrators may also have varying degrees of support for education – especially if they see education as a threat to the primary functions of security and control.

Conclusion

Most studies indicate that an individual who benefits from college course while in prison is less likely to return to prison than someone who has not taken college courses while in prison. There is some question as to why these courses cause lower recidivism. Many of the benefits of a college education are difficult to measure. As such, it may be difficult to show a clear relationship between educational opportunity and recidivism. However, an intervening factor, the ability to find and hold a job, appears to clearly demonstrate the benefits of college courses in prison. College education increases the likelihood of post-release employment, which reduces the chance of recidivism.

The vast majority of incarcerated individuals will eventually be released. The imprisonment binge over the last 20 years has created a situation where we are beginning to see prison releases at unprecedented levels. Due to strict sentencing guidelines, these prisoners have often served long terms and are released only when their terms have been completely served. Many are released unconditionally, without parole or other post-release supervision. Each of these individuals will be expected to begin leading a productive, law abiding life outside prison walls. Access to a quality education can increase their chance of success.

References and Suggested Readings

Batiuk, M, Moke, P.and Rounree, P. (1997). “Crime and Rehabilitation: Correctional Education as An Agent of Change – A Research Note,” Justice Quarterly, 14(1).

Bureau of Justice Statistics (2002). “Key crime and justice facts at a glance.” http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance.htm

Currie, E. (1985). Confronting Crime: An American Challenge. New York: Pantheon Books.

Fine, M., et.al. (2001) Changing Minds: The Impact of College in a Maximum Security Prison. The Graduate Center of the City University of New York. http://www.gc.cuny.edu/folio/index.htm.

Gerber, J. and Fritsch, E. (1993). Prison Education and Offender Behavior: A Review of the Scientific Literature. Huntsville, TX: Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.

Greenwood, P.W., Model, K.E., Rydell, C.P. and Chiesa, J. (1996). Diverting children from a life of crime: Measuring costs and benefits. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.

Haigler, K. O.; Harlow, C.; O’Connor, P.; and Campbell, A. (1994). Literacy Behind Prison Walls. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Harer, M. (1995). “Prison Education Program Participation and Recidivism: A Test of the Normalization Hypothesis,” Washington, DC: Federal Bureau of Prisons.

LoBuglio, S. (2001). “Time to reframe politics and practices in correctional education.” In J. Comings, B. garner and C. Smith (Eds.), Annual Review of Adult Learning and Literacy, Vol.2. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Steurer, S., Smith, L., Tracy, A. (2001). “Three State Recidivism Study”. Prepared for the Office of Correctional Education, US Department of Education. Lanham, MD: Correctional Education Association.

Stevens, D. and Ward, C., (1997). “College Education and Recidivism: Educating Criminals Meritorious,” Journal of Correctional Education, 48(3).

Taylor, J.M. (1993). Pell Grants for prisoners. The Nation, January 25.

Taylor, J.M. (1992). “Post Secondary Correctional Education: An Evaluation of Effectiveness and Efficiency,” Journal of Correctional Education, 43(3).

Tolbert, M. (2002). “State Correctional Education Programs.” Washington, D.C.: National Institute for Literacy. http://www.nifl.gov/nifl/policy/st_correction_02.pdf

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Correctional Education (1995). “Pell Grants and the incarcerated.” Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Correctional Education (1994). “The Impact of Correctional Education on Recidivism 1988-1994,” Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Worth, R. (1995). “A model prison.” The Atlantic Monthly, November.

Correctional Education

Kenneth W. Mentor
University of North Carolina Wilmington

Introduction

Although prison populations have grown at unprecedented levels over the last 30 years, legislation has resulted in significant cuts in correctional education funding. The debate over correctional education often focuses on the fairness of providing benefits for prisoners. On one side, opponents ask “why should prisoners get a free education? I have to pay for school and I am a law abiding citizen.” The other side of the debate reminds us that “these people are eventually going to get out. Don’t you want them to have skills that can help them stay out of trouble?”

While evidence supports those who argue for the importance of correctional education, crime related legislation is often influenced by the “get tough on crime” mentality. Ironically, this perspective has resulted in the elimination of many programs that were effective in reducing crime. Although much of the debate has focused on funding for college programs, funding cuts have harmed all education efforts. A broader examination of contemporary correctional education illustrates the range of programs offered in correctional institutions. The benefits of these programs extend to prisoners, correctional institutions, and society as a whole.

Background

The U.S. Department of Education defines correctional education as “that part of the total correctional process that focuses on changing the behavior of offenders through planned learning experiences and learning environments. It seeks to develop or enhance knowledge, skills, attitudes, and values of incarcerated youth and adults.”[i] The U.S. Department of Justice “recognize[s] the importance of education as both an opportunity for inmates to improve their knowledge and skills and as a correctional management tool that encourages inmates to use their time in a constructive manner.”[ii]

Eighty-four percent of all state and federal adult correctional facilities have some form of educational programming.[iii] Correctional educators provide courses in subjects including literacy, special education, English as a second language, and basic education courses leading to a General Equivalency Degree (GED). Programs also offer access to college courses, often as part of a degree program. Most programs focus on the development of basic academic skills, typically along with the completion of a high school diploma or equivalent.[iv] A 2004 survey indicates that 40 states offer adult basic education and GED instruction. Vocational programs were available in 69 percent of state institutions with all states reporting some vocational programs. Post-secondary education was available in 60% of these institutions.[v]

** Sidebar:

According to a UNESCO study based on data from over 60 countries, many of the 10 million prisoners worldwide have dropped out of school.[vi] In developing countries the large majority have never seen the inside of a classroom. Prisoners’ educational level is low throughout the world, in most cases below the national average. According to this study, while most countries claim that education is available to all inmates, the reality is quite different. The reasons are multiple – insufficient funding, lack of teachers, security problems, over-population and inmates’ own lack of interest. The UNESCO study emphasizes that education for all is a universal right and restriction of one’s freedom does not suspend that right. The authors call for more investment by governments, international organizations and NGOs, so that prisons become places of continuous and informal learning, rather than schools of crime.

** END of Sidebar

Correctional education may also focus on improving individual skills needed to productively function within correctional facilities. These courses include literacy, special education, and other learner specific areas. Courses may also include parenting, empathy skills, communication and dispute processing, cultural awareness, and other life skills necessary in, and out, of correctional facilities. Educational opportunities that center on the effective functioning of the institution include library science, barbering or hairstyling, auto and small engine repair, cooking, laundry and tailoring, carpentry, building maintenance, and other vocational skills that may lead to employment opportunities upon release.

In addition to advantages associated with the effective functioning of correctional institutions, prison education programs are among the best tools for reducing recidivism. Individuals who have taken courses while in prison improve their chances of attaining and keeping employment after release and are less likely to commit additional crimes. Individuals who completed college courses in prison also found, and kept, better jobs. These factors work together to reduce recidivism – those with more education find stable employment, which makes them less likely to commit crime.[vii]

The more education an inmate receives, the lower the rate of recidivism. Inmates who earned college degrees were the least likely to reenter prison. For inmates who had some high school, the rate of recidivism was 54.6%. For college graduates the rate dropped to 5.4%.[viii] A Texas Department of Criminal Justice study found that while the state’s overall rate of recidivism was 60%. The rate dropped to 13.7%, for those with associate degrees. The recidivism rate for those with Bachelor’s degrees was 5.6 percent.[ix] The Changing Minds[x] study found that only 7.7% of the inmates who took college courses returned to prison after release, while 29.9% of those who did not participate in the college program were reincarcerated.          Research demonstrates that crime prevention is more cost-effective than building prisons and that of all crime prevention methods; education is the most cost-effective.[xi] Those who benefited from correctional education recidivated 29% less often than those who did not have educational opportunities while in the correctional institution.[xii] Even small reductions in recidivism can save millions of dollars in costs associated with keeping the recidivist in prison. Additional costs are apparent when we consider that the law abiding individual will be working, paying taxes, and making a positive contribution to the economy. When we add the reduction of costs, both financial and emotional, to victims of crime, the benefits are even greater. Finally, stresses on the justice system are lowered when the crime rate is reduced.

Key Events

Education has always been a part of the correctional system in the United States. Since education is a key element in the focus on “corrections,” correctional education has made important contributions to the prison reform movement. Our emphasis is on contemporary correctional education, beginning in 1965, when Congress passed Title IV of the Higher Education Act. This Act permitted inmates, and other low income students, to apply for Pell grants to be used for college courses. Major themes of contemporary correctional education include an increase in post secondary programs and the expansion of federal influence.[xiii] In 1965, only 12 post-secondary correctional education programs were operating in the United States. Based in part on the availability of federal funding, there were 350 programs with approximately 27,000 inmates in 1982. This represented almost 9% of the total prison population at the time, receiving some form of post-secondary education.[xiv]

Although the cost was relatively low, the idea of providing Pell grants to prisoners was somewhat controversial and many argued for the elimination of these grants. Politicians suggested that grants to inmates were provided at the expense of law-abiding students. This argument was coupled with a belief that prison life was too “soft.” In response to this debate, Congress placed significant restrictions on corrections-based college programs with the passage of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994.[xv] This Act eliminated Pell Grants for prisoners – with devastating effects. In 1990, there were 350 higher education programs for inmates.[xvi] By 1997, only eight programs remained.[xvii] The “get tough on crime” mentality had eliminated an effective crime reduction tool.

In the 1993-94 school year over 25,000 students in correctional facilities were recipients of Pell grants. Although Pell grants were not the only source of revenue for these programs, the grants provided a predictable flow of money that was relied upon for the continued functioning of these programs. Since correctional education programs offer courses in a variety of areas, institutions often rely on a range of funding sources. In addition to private and state funding, the federal government provides support to state correctional education through the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act.[xviii] However, funding has not kept pace with need. With no assurances of replacement funds, most correctional education programs have been forced to abandon efforts to provide college courses in prison.

** Sidebar

In the 1990’s we also began to see a dollar-for-dollar tradeoff between corrections and education spending. New York, for example, steadily increased its Department of Corrections budget by 76 percent to $761 million. During the same period, the state decreased funding to university systems by 28 percent, to $615 million.[xix] Much of the increase in corrections spending was the result of longer prison terms and the need for increased prison construction. The costs of policies that rely on longer periods of incarceration are placing limits on educational opportunities in correctional institutions, as well as educational institutions throughout the nation.

** End of Sidebar

Future Prospects

At least 26 states have mandatory correctional education laws that mandate education for a certain amount of time, or until a set level of achievement is reached. Enrollment in correctional education is required in many states if the inmate is under a certain age. These educational efforts are often directed toward the completion of a high school diploma or equivalency, and states typically provide funding based on success as measured by the rate of GED completion. The Federal Bureau of Prisons has also implemented a mandatory education policy that requires inmates who do not have a high school diploma or a GED to participate in literacy programs for a minimum of 240 hours or until they obtain their GED. In spite of controversies regarding funding, and policy responses associated with these debates, correction policies continue to define education as a core responsibility.

As the result of the imprisonment binge over the last 25 years, we are beginning to see prison releases at unprecedented levels. Due to strict sentencing guidelines, these prisoners have often served long mandatory terms and are released only when their terms have been completely served. Many are released unconditionally, without parole or other post-release supervision. Each of these individuals will be expected to begin leading a productive, law abiding life outside prison walls. Access to a quality education can increase their chance of success. The vast majority of incarcerated individuals will eventually be released. Society has the potential to save billions of dollars annually through the funding of prison academic programs that prepare individuals for a productive return to society. Even if an individual does recidivate, for each year they are not in prison prior to reincarceration, we continue to save money by not housing individuals for that time period.[xx]

Correctional educators continue to face scrutiny and pessimism from those who question the value of their work and the merits of providing educational opportunities to those who have committed serious crimes. Due to these controversies, many prisoners do not have the opportunity to participate in prison education programs. Given the unprecedented prison population, and the equally unprecedented rate of release, correctional education has the potential to save millions of dollars while improving the lives and opportunities of individuals who have served their time and have successfully paid their debt to society.

Recommended Readings

Batiuk, M., Moke, P. and Rountree, P. (1997). “Crime and Rehabilitation: Correctional Education as an Agent of Change – A Research Note,” Justice Quarterly, 14(1).

Fine, M., et.al. (2001) Changing Minds: The Impact of College in a Maximum Security Prison. The Graduate Center of the City University of New York. http://www.changingminds.ws/

Gerber, J. and Fritsch, E. (1993). Prison Education and Offender Behavior: A Review of the Scientific Literature. Huntsville, TX: Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.

Haigler, K. O., Harlow, C., O’Connor, P., and Campbell, A. (1994). Literacy Behind Prison Walls. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=94102

Harer, M. (1995). Prison Education Program Participation and Recidivism: A Test of the Normalization Hypothesis. Washington, DC: Federal Bureau of Prisons.

Page, J, (2004). “Eliminating the enemy: The import of denying prisoners access to higher education in Clinton’s America.” Punishment & Society, Vol. 6(4).

Steurer, S., Smith, L., and Tracy, A. (2001). Three State Recidivism Study. Prepared for the Office of Correctional Education, US Department of Education. Lanham, MD: Correctional Education Association.

Tewksbury, R. and Stengel, K.M. (2006). “Assessing Correctional Education Programs: The Students’ Perspective.” Journal of Correctional Education, Vol. 57(1).

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Correctional Education (1994). “The Impact of Correctional Education on Recidivism 1988-1994,” Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Endnotes

[i] U.S. Department of Education, Office of Correctional Education (1994). “The Impact of Correctional Education on Recidivism 1988-1994,” Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

[ii] Tolbert, M. (2002). State Correctional Education Programs. Washington, D.C.: National Institute for Literacy.

[iii] Wilson, D.B., Gallagher, C.A., and Coggeshall, M.B. (1999). “A quantitative review and description of correctional-based education, vocation, and work programs.” Correctional Management Quarterly, 3(1).

[iv] Foley, R.M., and Gao. J. (2004). Correctional education: Characteristics of academic programs

serving incarcerated adults, Journal of Correctional Education, 55(1).

[v] Foley

[vi] Maeyer, Marc de (2005). “Liberation through education: prisoners are among the most excluded from education, according to a UNESCO study.” Education Today, No. 14.

[vii] Batiuk, M., Moke, P. and Rountree, P. (1997). “Crime and Rehabilitation: Correctional Education as an Agent of Change – A Research Note,” Justice Quarterly, 14(1).

[viii] Harer, M. (1987). Recidivism Among Federal Prisoners Released in 1987. Washington DC: Federal Bureau of Prisons.

[ix] Gerber, J. and Fritsch, E. (1993). Prison Education and Offender Behavior: A Review of the Scientific Literature. Huntsville, TX: Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.

[x] Fine, M., et.al. (2001) Changing Minds: The Impact of College in a Maximum Security Prison. The Graduate Center of the City University of New York. http://www.changingminds.ws/

[xi] Greenwood, P.W., Model, K.E., Rydell, C.P. and Chiesa, J. (1996). Diverting children from a life of crime: Measuring costs and benefits. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.

[xii] Steurer, S., Smith, L., and Tracy, A. (2001). Three State Recidivism Study. Prepared for the Office of Correctional Education, US Department of Education. Lanham, MD: Correctional Education Association.

[xiii] Gehring, T. The History of Correctional Education. Available on the Correctional Education Association’s web site at: http://www.ceanational.org

[xiv] Wolford, B. I., and Littlefield, J. F., (1985). “Correctional Post-Secondary Education: The Expanding Role of Community Colleges.” Community/Junior College Quarterly of Research and Practice; 9(3)

[xv] Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. H.R.3355 (1994). http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c103:H.R.3355.ENR:

[xvi] Wolford

[xvii] Center on Crime, Communities, & Culture. (1997). “Education as crime prevention: Providing education to prisoners.” Research Brief (2). New York: Occasional Paper Series.

[xviii] Workforce Investment Act of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-220, § 231.e. Stat. 1071 (1998). http://www.ed.gov/policy/adulted/leg/legis.html

[xix] Gangi, R., Schiraldi, V., and Ziedenberg, J. (1998). New York State of Mind: Higher Education v.s Prison Funding in the Empire State, 1988-1998. Washington, DC: The Justice Policy Institute.

[xx] Taylor, J.M, (1992). “Post-secondary correctional education: An evaluation of effectiveness and efficiency,” Journal of Correctional Education, 43(3).

Adult Continuing Education in Prison

The following unedited or draft essay by Kenneth Mentor was published in the Encyclopedia of Crime & Punishment (Sage, 2002).

Corrections educators provide courses in a variety of subjects including literacy, special education, English as a second language, vocational, college, parenting, and general educational development courses leading to a GED. The U.S. Department of Education defines correctional education as “that part of the total correctional process that focuses on changing the behavior of offenders through planned learning experiences and learning environments. It seeks to develop or enhance knowledge, skills, attitudes, and values of incarcerated youth and adults.” Similarly, the U.S. Department of Justice “recognize[s] the importance of education as both an opportunity for inmates to improve their knowledge and skills and as a correctional management tool that encourages inmates to use their time in a constructive manner.” (cited in Tolbert, 2002, pg. 15)

BENEFITS OF EDUCATION

Studies indicate that there are a number of benefits associated with education in prison. For example, one study indicated that those who benefited from correctional education recidivated 29% less often that those who did not have educational opportunities while in the correctional institution. Even small reductions in recidivism can save millions of dollars in costs associated with keeping the recidivist offender in prison for longer periods of time. Additional costs are apparent when we consider that the individual, had he or she not committed another crime, would be working, paying taxes, and making a positive contribution to the economy. When we add the reduction of costs, both financial and emotional, to victims of crime, the benefits are even greater. Finally, the justice system as a whole, including police and courts, saves a great deal of money when the crime rate is reduced.

A 1987 Bureau of Prisons report found that the more education an inmate received, the lower the rate of recidivism. Inmates who earned college degrees were the least likely to reenter prison. For inmates who had some high school, the rate of recidivism was 54.6 percent. For college graduates the rate dropped to 5.4 percent. Similarly, a Texas Department of Criminal Justice study found that while the state’s overall rate of recidivism was 60 percent, for holders of college associate degrees it was 13.7 percent. The recidivism rate for those with Bachelor’s degrees was 5.6 percent. The rate for those with Master’s degrees was 0 percent. Similarly, the Changing Minds study found that only 7.7% of the inmates who took college courses at Bedford Hills returned to prison after release, while 29.9% of the inmates who did not participate in the college program were reincarcerated. The study calculates that this reduction in reincarceration would save approximately $900,000 per 100 student prisoners over a two-year period. If we project these savings to the 600,000 prison releases in a single year, the saving are enormous.

In addition to benefits related to recidivism, prison-based education programs also provide benefits related to the functioning of prisons. These programs provide incentives to inmates in a setting in which rewards are relatively limited. These classes also offer socialization opportunities with similarly motivated students and educators who serve as positive role models. Educational endeavors also keep students busy and provide intellectual stimulation in an environment that can be difficult to manage when prisoners break rules in a search for activity that breaks the monotony of prison life. These programs also provide a “light at the end of the tunnel” that can serve as a stabilizing force for the individual who might otherwise view his or her situation as somewhat hopeless. Many prisons provide incentives for inmates who participate in adult basic education. Opportunities to earn privileges within the facility, increased visitation, and the accumulation or loss of “good time” that can lead to earlier parole, are used to motivate the student while providing incentives for appropriate behavior within the facility.

CHALLENGES

Prison educators face many challenges. Inmates who choose to enroll in corrections-based courses are not necessarily any different from the typical student. As in any class, the range of abilities can include very gifted students, students who face challenges, and students who have various motives for enrolling in the course. The educator’s challenge is compounded by the uniqueness of prison culture and the need for security. Prisons adhere to strict routines that may not be ideal in an educational setting. In addition, inmates are often moved from one facility to another. This movement interrupts, or ends, the individual’s educational programming. These structural issues are accompanied by social factors that can further limit learning opportunities. For example, other prisoners may not support the individual’s educational efforts. Although the student may be very motivated to earn an education, he or she remains in an environment in which conflicting demands may limit the opportunity to act on that motivation. In addition, prison administrators may also have varying degrees of support for education – especially if they see education as a threat to the primary functions of security and control.

Adult basic education programs rely on a range of funding sources. Since these programs offer courses in a variety of areas, the institutions may need to rely on a range of funding sources. Some sources will provide general funds while others will provide funding for specific programs. Many states have mandatory education laws that require correctional educations courses for any inmate who scores below a certain level on a standardized test. At least 26 states have mandatory corrections education laws that mandate education for a certain amount of time or until a set level of achievement is reached. Enrollment in correctional education is also required in many states if the inmate is under a certain age, as specified by that state’s compulsory education law. The states typically provide funding based, in part, on success as measured by the rate of GED completion. The Federal Bureau of Prisons has also implemented a mandatory education policy that required inmates who do not have a high school diploma or a GED to participate in literacy programs for a minimum of 240 hours or until they obtain their GED.

ADULT EDUCATION AND FAMILY LITERACY ACT

In addition to state funding, the federal government provides support to state correctional education through the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act (AEFLA), which became law in 1998. However, funding is not keeping pace with need and the AEFLA has not improved this situation. The AEFLA continues to provide funding but altered the formula for state funding. Prior to 1998, states were required to spend at least 10 percent of AEFLA funds on educational programming in correctional institutions. The law now requires that they spend no more than 10 percent. Similar limitations were placed on funding as the Perkins Vocational and Technical Act was amended in 1998 to require that no more that one percent of federal funding for vocational and technical education programs be spent in state institutions, including correctional institutions. Congress placed even more significant restrictions on corrections-based college courses with the passage of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. This Act eliminated Pell Grants for prisoners with devastating effects. In 1990, there were 350 higher education programs for inmates. In 1997, there were 8.

Legislation over the past 20 years, a time in which the prison population has grown at unprecedented levels, has resulted in significant cuts in corrections education funding. This has resulted in the elimination of many programs. Ironically, the “get tough on crime” mentality resulted in the elimination of many programs that were effective in reducing crime. In the 1990’s we began to see a dollar-for-dollar tradeoff between corrections and education spending. New York, for example, steadily increased its Department of Corrections budget by 76 percent to $761 million while decreasing funding to university systems by 28 percent, to $615 million. Research by the RAND Corporation demonstrates that crime prevention is more cost-effective than building prisons and that of all crime prevention methods; education is the most cost-effective. However, states were committing an increasing percentage of their budgets to fund longer prison terms and increased prison construction.

 Conclusion

Studies consistently indicate that an individual who benefits from education while in prison is less likely to return to prison than someone who has not had the benefits of Adult Basic Education while in prison. There is some question as to why corrections-based education leads to lower recidivism. Many of the benefits of education are difficult to measure. As such, it may be difficult to show a clear relationship between educational opportunity and recidivism. However, an intervening factor, the ability to find and hold a job, appears to clearly demonstrate the benefits of corrections-based Adult Basic Education. Individuals who take courses while in prison improve their chances of attaining and keeping employment after release. As a result, they are less likely to commit additional crimes that would lead to their return to prison. Individuals who benefited from college courses in prison also found better jobs and held these jobs for longer periods of time. It is clear that these factors work together to reduce recidivism – those with more education find stable employment which makes them less likely to commit crime.

The vast majority of incarcerated individuals will eventually be released. The imprisonment binge over the last 20 years has created a situation where we are beginning to see prison releases at unprecedented levels. Due to strict sentencing guidelines, these prisoners have often served long terms and are released only when their terms have been completely served. As a result, many are released unconditionally, without parole or other post-release supervision. Each of these individuals will be expected to begin leading a productive, law abiding life outside prison walls. It is clear that access to a quality education increases the individual’s chance of success.

FURTHER READING

Batiuk, M, Moke, P.and Rountree, P. (1997). “Crime and Rehabilitation: Correctional Education as an Agent of Change – A Research Note,” Justice Quarterly, 14(1).

Bureau of Justice Statistics (2002). “Key crime and justice facts at a glance.” http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance.htm

Fine, M., et.al. (2001) Changing Minds: The Impact of College in a Maximum Security Prison. The Graduate Center of the City University of New York. http://www.gc.cuny.edu/folio/index.htm.

Gerber, J. and Fritsch, E. (1993). Prison Education and Offender Behavior: A Review of the Scientific Literature. Huntsville, TX: Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division.

Greenwood, P.W., Model, K.E., Rydell, C.P. and Chiesa, J. (1996). Diverting children from a life of crime: Measuring costs and benefits. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.

Haigler, K. O.; Harlow, C.; O’Connor, P.; and Campbell, A. (1994). Literacy Behind Prison Walls. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Harer, M. (1995). “Prison Education Program Participation and Recidivism: A Test of the Normalization Hypothesis,” Washington, DC: Federal Bureau of Prisons.

LoBuglio, S. (2001). “Time to reframe politics and practices in correctional education.” In J. Comings, B. garner and C. Smith (Eds.), Annual Review of Adult Learning and Literacy, Vol.2. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Steurer, S., Smith, L., Tracy, A. (2001). “Three State Recidivism Study”. Prepared for the Office of Correctional Education, US Department of Education. Lanham, MD: Correctional Education Association.

Tolbert, M. (2002). “State Correctional Education Programs.” Washington, D.C.: National Institute for Literacy. http://www.nifl.gov/nifl/policy/st_correction_02.pdf

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Correctional Education (1994). “The Impact of Correctional Education on Recidivism 1988-1994,” Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.