Greetings, David & All,
It is a real privilege to be a part of this discussion group. As David 
noted, I am currently at Virginia Commonwealth University, but in my past 
life (until a year ago), I was an educator with the Federal Bureau of 
Prisons (and before that, a special education teacher K-6). I will be "in 
& out" of this discussion as my meetings & classes permit, but I look 
forward to learning much from the conversation, and I thank David and NIFL 
for providing this much-needed focus on correctional education (CE).

David, you asked three very hard questions! I am taking a shot at the 
recidivism one...

Participation in prison education programs has been associated with 
reductions of 10 to 33 percent in recidivism rates (Gaes, Flanagan, 
Motiuk, & Stewart, 1999; Saylor & Gaes, 1997; Steurer, Smith, & Tracy, 
2001). Gaes & Kendig (2002) concluded conservatively that correctional 
?programs had an average effect size of .10. Translating this into a more 
understandable metric, program participants had a 45 percent likelihood of 
being arrested compared to a 55 percent likelihood for members of 
comparison groups.? If this low-estimate seems like a small effect, I 
suggest we look at the scale of the problem (650,000 or so people released 
from prison each year!) 

But recidivism is an enormously complex subject ? definitions of 
recidivism, variety of learner needs, opportunities for follow-through in 
the community, etc. -- prompting Thom Gehring (2000) to ask if impact on 
recidivism is the right question. For example, teachers know when a 
student ?transforms? and gets enthused about learning. Is this not an 
outcome of the highest order? But will this transformation be sufficient 
to sustain this learner through the post-release roller-coaster ride, peer 
pressures, ongoing poverty effects, etc.? Is it reasonable to expect our 
education programs to have a sustaining power 3+ years after release? 

I am conflicted about this issue. When I was in the Federal Bureau of 
Prisons, a post-release employment effects of vocational training programs 
(Saylor & Gaes, 1997) found a 33% greater survival rate among prisoners 
that participated in vocational training programs while incarcerated. This 
study, which was well-designed and stood the test  of time as they say, 
enabled FBOP educators to find new funding sources for these programs 
after the elimination of Pell Grants in 1995. So I know the language of 
recidivism is the language of currency. 

Sorry for the side-track, David?back to your question: Why does CE have a 
positive impact on post-release success? It may be related to the broad 
relationship between education, work, and crime. Reder and Vogel (1997) 
found that adults (not limited to prisoners) with self-reported learning 
disabilities were more likely to be unemployed or work in jobs with low 
pay and low status. In a study of 68 male prisoners, ages 19-36, Gazze 
(1988) found an association between lower education levels and higher 
unemployment and crime, independent of learning disabilities status. 
Kling, Weiman, and Western (2002) found a relationship between wages, work 
and crime, and estimated that a 10 percent decrease in an individual?s 
wages could result in a 10 to 20 percent increase in criminal activity and 
incarceration. So higher level of education is associated with more work, 
and better jobs are associated with less crime. Should we be surprised by 
this?

I am certain that our programs make a difference. In a strange way, 
prison-based programs have at least one potential advantage over 
community-based ones. For one, learners tend to persist in school (often 
for less than ideal reasons, of course), and school is 5-days a week for 
90 minutes or more per day. 
Got to run.  More later...

William R. Muth, PhD
Assistant Professor, Reading Education and Adult Literacy
Virginia Commonwealth University
(804) 828-8768




David Rosen <djrosen at comcast.net> 
Sent by: specialtopics-bounces at nifl.gov
09/17/2006 10:44 PM
Please respond to
specialtopics at nifl.gov


To
specialtopics at nifl.gov
cc

Subject
[SpecialTopics 201]  Corrections Education,     Family Literacy and 
Transition to Community Education






Colleagues,

I would like to welcome our guests: John Linton, Correctional Education, 
Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools, U.S. Department of 
Education; Stephen J. Steurer, Ph.D., Executive Director, Correctional 
Education Association; and William R. Muth, PhD, Assistant Professor, 
Reading Education and Adult Literacy, Virginia Commonwealth University.

The discussion this week is in the realm of corrections education and its 
connections with family and community education.  Together we guest 
experts and participants -- will explore what we know from research, 
professional wisdom, experience as practitioners and as students, about 
prison family literacy and about how to help inmates who are being 
released to connect with community-based education programs and to 
continue their learning until they achieve their goals.

First I would like to invite each of our guests to introduce themselves, 
to tell us about their work in this area and their interest in corrections 
education which connects with family and community education.

I would also like to invite you to begin posting your questions for our 
guests.  I'll begin by posting some of mine:

I would like to start with some general questions about corrections 
education before focusing on family literacy and connections to community 
education. One of the readings that was suggested was Locked Up and Locked 
Out   [ "Locked Up and Locked Out, An Educational Perspective on the 
US Prison Population," Coley, Richard J. and Barton, Paul E., 
2006 Available on line at the ETS web site:
http://tinyurl.com/qmzfa ] I have three questions stimulated by that 
reading:
1. Locked Up and Locked Out  claims that research shows that ?education 
and training programs can raise employment prospects and cut recidivism?  
Can you elaborate on that. What is the research evidence? What do we know 
about what makes corrections education and training effective?
2. Steve Steurer, you have written that ?Public policy on crime and 
punishment should be determined by the most effective crime prevention and 
reduction technique available through proven research.? (quote cited in 
Locked Up and Locked Out)  Can you tell us what are some of these 
techniques?
 
3. Locked Up and Locked Out  describes the declining investment in prison 
education. ?Captive Students, an ETS report published in early 1996, 
reported a decline in the resources available for education and training 
in prisons, as well as a wide variation of resources among the states.  
According to the report, at least half of all state correctional 
institutions had cut their inmate educational programs over the prior five 
years.?  ?The decline has continued. From 1990 to 2000, the proportion of 
prison staff providing education fell from 4.1 to 3.2 percent of the total 
staff.? What has been the investment pattern since 2000? Further 
decreases? Level, increases? Has there been a ?turnaround? as it was 
predicted there would be by Marc Mauer, assistant director of the 
Sentencing Project based in Washington, D.C.? What are the prospects for 
increased funding for prison education?

David J. Rosen
Special Topics Discussion Moderator
djrosen at comcast.net


-------------------------------
National Institute for Literacy
Special Topics mailing list
SpecialTopics at nifl.gov
To unsubscribe or change your subscription settings, please go to 
http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/SpecialTopics
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.nifl.gov/pipermail/specialtopics/attachments/20060918/629b3e73/attachment.html