ED 395 209

TITLEINSTITUTION

PUB DATENOTEPUB TYPE

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

IDENTIFIERS

ABSTRACT

DOCUMENT RESUME

CE 071 738

Prison Education Research Project. Final Report.Sam Houston State Univ., Huntsville, Tex. CriminalJustice Center.; Texas State Dept. of CriminalJustice, Huntsville. Windham School System.Sep 9465p.Information Analyses (070)

MFOI/PC03 Plus Postage.Ac-tdemic Education; Adult Education; CollegePrograms; Comparative Analysis; *CorrectionalEducation; Educational Policy; *EducationalPractices; Literature Reviews; *Outcomes ofEducation; Participation; Policy Formation;Postsecondary.Education; *Predictor Variables;*Program Improvement; *Recidivism; State Programs;Statewide Planri.l.g; Success; Tables (Data);Vocational Educazion*Texas

More than 60 studies on prison education werereviewed tf.) determine the following: relationship between prisoneducation and offender behavior; effects of prison population controlstrategies on prison education programs; and effects of academic andvocational program participation on inmate misconduct andreincarceration. Among the main findings were the following: (1)inmates exposed to education programs have lower recidivism ratesthan do nonparticipants; (2) most vocational programs in prisonreported lower recidivism rates, lower parole revocation rates,better postrelease employment patterns, and better institutionaldisciplinary records for participants than for nonparticipants; and(3) factors associated with higher program success rates includekeeping the program separate from the rest of prison routinesproviding follow-up after release, identifying and attracting atarget population, and providing marketable vocational skills. Anexamination of the prison population control strategies andcorrectional education program provided by Texas' Windham SchoolSystem established the following: recent prison population controlstrategies have virtually closed the window of opportunity forinmates in educational and vocational programs; the system's academicprogramming had the greatest effects on inmates at the lower gradelevels; and the system's vocational programs have modestreincarceration effects. (Contains 108 references, 27 additionalpublications, not discussed in Chapter 1, and 14 tables.) (MN)

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.

***********************************************************************

-.5

JUSTIeEI

Education for Public Service

PRISON EDUCATION RESEARCH PROJECT

FINAL REPORT

U S DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION0,iir,n 0! Educational Rnsoarch end inprovoment

ED ATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)

This document has been mproduced asreceived from the person or organizationOriginating It

0 Minor changes have been made toimprove reproduction quality

Points of view Or opinions slated in thisdocument do not necessarily representofficial OERI position or policy

PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE ANDDISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL

HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

WI-06kTO TH DUCATION ESOURCES

INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)

September 1994

Sam Houston State Univc iityHuntsville, Texas

2 BEST COPY AVAILABLE

PRISON EDUCATION RESEARCH PROJECTFINAL REPORT

September 1994

The Prison Education Research Project is a cooperative research program of the CriminalJustice Center, Sam Houston State University, and the Windham School System of theTexas Department of Criminal JusticeInstitutional Division. The purpose of the project isto assess the impact of prison-based education programs on offender behavior.

Project Staff

Timothy J. Flanagan, Ph.D., Project Director

Associate Directors:

Kenneth Adams, Ph.D.Velmer Burton, Ph.D.Steven Cuvelier, Ph.D.

Jurg Gerber, Ph.D.Dennis Longmire, Ph.D.James Marquart, Ph.D.

Research Associates:

Katherine BennettEric J. Fritsch

Publication Staff:

Kay BillingsleyKaren FeinbergBarbara L. Gay

Viewpoints or opinions expressed in this document are those of the authors. They do notrepresent the official position or policies of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice orthe Windham School System.

3

Preface

In December 1992, the Comptroller's Office issued a report on the performance of theWindham School System (WSS). One recommendation was that Windham undertake anevaluation of the relationship between prison education programs and recidivism. TheWindham School System approached the Criminal Justice Center at Sam Houston StateUniversity to conduct an independent evaluation of WSS programs. -SHSU researchersundertook three studies; this report presents findings from these research efforts.

The first study surveyed the relevant research literature on prison education programs. Thesecond examined the effects of prison population control strategies on prison educationprograms and the window of opportunity. The third study examined the impact of WSSeducation programs on inmate misconduct and recidivism.

4

Summary of Chapter 1Prison Education and Offender Behavior:A Review of the Scientific Literature

This report surveyed over 60 studies on prison education. The most importantfindings were as follows:

The most common finding among 19 studies of precollege education programs inprison is that inmates exposed to education programs have lower recidivism ratesthan nonparticipants.

Ten studies of prison college programs and postrelease recidivism showed a strongrelationship between college education and reduced recidivism, while four studiesshowed no relationship.

Most of the recent studies of vocational programs in prison report lower recidivismrates, lower parole revocation rates, better postrelease employment patterns, andbetter institutional disciplinary records for participants compared to nonparticipants.

The review of the literature suggests further that:

The greater the exposure to educational programs, the greater the program's impact.

Programs that are separate from the rest of the prison routine are more likely tosucceed.

Programs that provide follow-up after release are more likely to succeed.

Programs that identify and attract a target population are more likely to achieveintended objectives.

Vocational programs that provide marketable skills are more likely to achieve statedobjectives.

Other research has suggested that the most stable predictors of recidivism may be ageat first arrest, age upon release, ethnicity, gender, living arrangements, family ties,current income, and history of drug and alcohol abuse. These latter factors are wellbeyond the control of prison educators. It may be therefore unrealistic to expectprison education to have a substantial effect on recidivism.

vi

Summary of Chapter 2A Limited Capacity to Treat:Examining the Effects of PrisonPopulation Control Strategieson Prison Education Programs

1

This report examined the effects of prison population control strategies on prison education

programs. The majcr findings were:

This report defines the "window of opportunity" as the time necessary for an inmateto achieve a one grade level increase in an academic program or receive vocational

certification.

The rapid downturn in time served, a backlog of inmates in county jails waitingtransfer and inadequate classroom space limit inmate exposure to Windham School

System programs.

Findings indicate that the window of opportunity for inmates in educational andvocational programs has been virtually closed. The time it takes to effect a one grade

level change or to achieve vocational certification often surpasses the average time

served in prison.

A shrinking window of opportunity would have deleterious effects on WindhamSchool System performance. Fewer inmates would be able to complete programs,achieve grade level changes, receive vocational certification, or earn GEDs. Manyinmates would therefore leave the prison system without the benefits of education.

6

vii

Summary of Chapter 3The Effects of Academicand Vocational Program Participationon Inmate Misconduct and Reincarceration

This study examined the impact of inmate participation in Windham academic andvocational programming on return to prison and disciplinary infractions while incarcerated.

Exposure to educational programs is a critical issue in measures of effectiveness inreducing return to prison. For example, inmates with more than 300 hours inWindham academic programs had a 16.6 percent reincarceration rate compared toa 25.0 percent for inmates with less than 100 hours in Windham academic programs.

Windham academic programming had the greatest effect on inmates at the lowergrade levels. Among inmates with less than a fourth grade education level, thosewith over 200 hours in academic programming had a reincarceration rate of 18.1percent, compared to 26.6 percent of inmates with no exposure to Windham. Thedata suggest that recidivism rates can be reduced by about one-third if extensiveservices target inmates in the lowest educational achievement levels.

Hours of program participation resulted in lower levels of reincarceration for inmatesat all grade levels.

Participation in vocational programs showed modest reincarceration effects.

7

Recommendations to the Windham SchoolSystem anu Texas Department of CriminalJustice-Institutional Division

1. Windham School System should work in concert with parole and institutional divisionstaff to identify parole dates of all inmates eligible to participate in educationalprograms. Priority should be given to inmates who can complete programs and whowould benefit the most from WSS Services.

2. The Windham School System should target inmates who may be exposed to at least twohundred hours of academic programming, focusing especially on those inmates with thelowest educational levels.

3. For vocational programming, WSS should target inmates who will be incarcerated longenough to complete a program but with an impending release date that will allow themto make use of their vocational training shortly after certification.

4. The Windham School System, in conjunction with the Institutional Division, shouldexplore the possibility of establishing dedicated units to emphasize academic andvocational programs.

5. The Windham School System should seek to establish continuity of service delivery withliteracy programs in the free community.

6. Windham officials should develop programs that reflect changes in time served andshould solicit cooperation from Institutional Division officials to assure that eligibleinmates are able to complete the programs.

7. The Windham School System should conduct follow-up research to ascertain therelationship between programming, post-prison employment, and patterns of recidivism.

Contents

Chapter 1

Chapter 2

Chapter 3

References

Appendix

Tables

Prison Education and Offender Behavior:A Review of the Scientific Literature 1

A Limited Capacity to Treat: Examiningthe Effects of Prison Population ControlStrategies on Prison Education Programs 13

The Effects of Academic and VocationalProgram Participation on InmateMisconduct and Reincarceration 23

33

40

42

CHAPTER 1PRISON EDUCATION AND OFFENDER BEHAVIOR:A REVIEW OF THE SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE

Abstract

This article summarizes and integrates the findingsof recent studies that evaluate adult academic andvocational correctional education programs for men.Contrary to the famous Martinson Report (1974), itwas concluded was that the recent research showssupport for the hypotheses that adult academic andvocational correctional education programs lead tofewer disciplinary violations during incarceration, toreductions in recidivism, to increases inemployment opportunities, and to increases inparticipation in education upon release. Thischapter concludes with recommendations for futureresearch.

Introduction

Correctional education programs haveexisted since the 1800s, but initially theprograms focused on religious instruction.It was believed that rehabilitative effortscould be enhanced if the incarceratedoffender sought spiritual enlightenment(Linden and Perry 1983). Not until the1930s did educational programs begin toplay a primary role in the rehabilitativeprocess and to receive broad acceptancefor their potential effect on offenders.These programs focused primarily onacademic and vocational education. In

the 1960s, postsecondary programs beganto be offered in correctional settings(Linden and Perry 1983). Todaycorrectional education programs areprevalent, but observers have questionedthe impact of these programs on inmates,both during incarceration and uponrelease.

Writing about two decades ago, and afterthoroughly reviewing 231 studies of

1

prison programs aimed at rehabilitatinginmates, Martinson concluded that

[w]ith few and isolated exceptions,the rehabilitative efforts that havebeen reported so far have had noappreciable effect on recidivism(1974 [1976]:25).

This finding, which was picked up by themass media (e.g., "Big Change in Prisons"1975), was used by critics of prisonprograms to argue against rehabilitationas the primary justification forincarceration. Soon, however,Martinson's critics pointed out that hewas premature in dismissing all forms ofintervention. Although few programs cansucceed in rehabilitating all inmates,more moderate successes may bepossible:

Rather than ask, "What worksforoffenders as a whole?" we mustincreasingly ask "Which methodswork best for which types ofoffenders, and under what conditionsor in what types of setting?" (Palmer1976:150).

Our goal is to identify research thatassesses the effects of correctionaleducation on inmates. We focus on thefollowing possible outcomes:

Do inmates who participated ineducational programs whileincarcerated have lower recidivismrates than nonparticipants?

IU

2

Are participants more likely thannonparticipants to enroll ineducational programs upon releasefrom incarceration?Do participants have betteremployment records thannonparticipants after release?Do participants exhibit fewerdisciplinary problems thannonparticipants while incarcerated?

Adult education in prison could lead intwo ways to a reduction in criminalbehavior, to postrelease enrollment ineducation, to better postrel easeemployment history, and to fewerdisciplinary problems. First, inmatescould become more conscientious as aresult of moral development due toexposure to the libral arts (Gordon andArbuthnot 1987). The following claim,for instance, concerns inmates' behaviorin prison:

The prisons will benefit becauseintellectually challenged minds tendto maintain clean institutional recordssince the inmate, trained at a highercognitive level, will acquire theability to respond to situationsintellectually and verbally rather thanphysically (O'Neil 1990:29).

Second, and alternatively, inmates maybenefit because they have bettereducational credentials upon release,which lead to more opportunities. Thusthey suffer less strain (Merton 1938).These possibilities seem plausible, butmust be supported by experience andobservation. Although an education mayhave positive influences on an inmateupon release, extraneous variables alsomay affect these outcomes. Thesevariables include various social,psychological, and environmental factors.

Criteria for Selectionand Evaluation

Let us begin with some preliminarycomments about the selection andevaluation of studies. First, evaluatingany one prison program without regardfor the social environment is bound to beproblematic. On an abstract level it is

fairly easy to identify single causes ofbehaviors, or at least to note influences,but reality is often quite complex. Thesuccess of a prison program is affected bymany factors beyond its owncharacteristics. A case in point is

provided by studying the causes ofrecidivism:

To measure the success of a programagainst the single variable of theabsence of reconviction for a criminalact does not take into account themany other factors influencing anindividual both during and afterrelease. There appears to be ageneral agreement in the literaturethat factors such as the offender'sprevious life history, post-releasefamily and other socio-economicconnections, access to opportunitysystems, physical and mental health,and a variety of other variablescontribute substantially to his or herbehavior upon release fromincarceration . . . ; Persons who haveexperienced correctional training maybe favorably affected by the treatmentonly to have the good effectsdiscounted by the fact that they arereturned to the same family, the sameneighborhood, and the samedetrimental social groupings andinfluences which contributed to theirantisocial behavior in the first p/ace(Enocksson 1981:12).

1 I

Second, determining the impact of anycorrectional intervention is complicatedby the problem of self-selection. Usuallyit is impossible to assign subjectsrandomly to an experimental group(inmates participating in the treatmentprogram) and a control group (inmatesnot included in the program). Thereforeself-selection becomes an issue. Forexample, inmates who volunteer forvocational education may be more highlymotivated than those who do not do so(see, for instance, Saylor and Gaes 1987).If these inmates are found to do betterafter they are released from custody (asshown by lower recidivism rates, forexample), it is difficult to determinewhether their postrelease success is dueto their ambitions or to the success of theprogram in which they were involved.Unfortunately, many studies do notcontrol for such biases.'

Third, research sometimes is conductedwith very small samples, althoughstatisticians argue that few meaningfulstatistical conclusions can be reachedwith samples of fewer than 30 individuals(e.g., Hamilton 1990). Our review doesnot include studies based on such smallsamples.

Fourth, the measurement of conse-quences and the length of follow-upperiod are important. For instance,recidivism can be measured by newarrests, new convictions, or newincarcerations. Similarly, former inmatesmay be followed for three months, sixmonths, one year, or several years. As ageneral rule, the longer researchers followsubjects, the more confident we are inaccepting their findings. Also, the moredetail provided, the more accurately wecan evaluate the precision of theresearch.

3

Fifth, hundreds of studies conducted inthe United States and Canada focus onthe outcomes of correctional education.Many of these studies were tarried out bythe correctional units responsible foradministering the programs, and thus dealmainly with administrative andorganizational aspects of the programs.Such studies may deal with the organi-zational structure of the educationalsystem, personnel requirements, thenumber of students enrolled in variousprograms, or the number of graduates perprogram. These studies provideoverviews of the particular programs, butthey are not concerned primarily withoutcomes of correctional education.Here we review only studies that dealspecifically with outcomes.

In most instances we also limit ourdiscussion to studies that report onindependent and original research. Withvery few exceptions, we do not includearticles in which the authors argue for oragainst a particular type of correctionaleducation program without reporting anevaluation of an existing program.'

We selected and evaluated studies on thebasis of the criteria listed in Table 1. Weused these criteria to rate each study wereviewed. The most rigorous studiesemployed a control group, used someform of control (either matching, randomassignment, or statistical controls), andincluded tests of statistical significance.We awarded studies one point foraddressing each of these three issues;consequently the "methodology scores"range from 0 to 3. Tables 2, 3, and 4display the results of each study andpresent our rating of their methodologicaladequacy.

4

Review of the Literature

The great variety of programs admin-istered in prisons makes evaluationdifficult, but we can distinguish betweenacademic, vocational, and socialeducation. Furthermore, some studiesfocus on the outcomes of participation incollege education; others examine highschool or below-high school education.Some studies analyze the outcomes ofeducational programs for juveniles; othersconcentrate on programs for adults. Wewill discuss separately the literaturedealing with each of these programs.Our discussion focuses on academic andvocational education for adults, which isthe primary mission of the WindhamSchool System:

Over 75 percent of the inmates in the7DCJ-1D [Texas Department ofCriminal JusticInstitutional Division]had less than a high schooleducation. Nearly half (48 percent)of the inmate population performsbelow the sixth grade level on astandardized achievement test. Inaddition, the average unemploymentrate for offenders in Texas is 47percent according to a 1989 studycompared to a state-wide rate amongthe general population of 6.2 percentfor school year 1989-90. Therefore,the basic program of instructionoffered the inmate populationemphasizes literacy skills, GEDpreparation, and vocational trainingto enhance the probability of aninmate becoming gainfully employedupon release from prison (WindhamSchool System, no date:2).

For comparison, we also present findingsfrom research on social educationprograms for adults, but we do notemphasize these findings. Socialeducation programs focus primarily on

providing inmates with "coping skills," asopposed to marketable skills orcredentials. Also, we do not presentresearch on intervention programs forjuveniles because it does not pertain toadult correctional education.

Adult Academic Education

Basic and secondary education. Theresearch findings concerning basic andsecondary education are fairly clear. Afew researchers found no evidence thatadult academic education has anypositive effects on recidivism, but themost common finding, shown in Table 2,is that inmates exposed to educationprograms have lower recidivism ratesthan nonparticipants.

Martinson (1974; also see Lipton,Martinson, and Wilks 1975) claimed tofind no evidence of a relationshipbetween adult academic education andlower recidivism rates. A close readingof Martinson's discussion, however,shows that the studies he cited do notsupport his conclusions. Martinsonclaimed that six studies analyzed thisrelationship and that three showed nocorrelation. Unfortunately, he failed toidentify two of these studies.3 Of theremaining three, he acknowledged thattwo (Saden 1962; Schnur 1948) did showa correlation between adult educationand a reduction in recidivism; hedismissed the final study, Glaser (1964),as difficult to interpret.

The great majority of studies focusing onadult basic and secondary educationshow an inverse relationship betweenparticipation and recidivism. Anderson,Anderson, and Schumacker (1988:1-2)found in Illinois that "those whocompleted a GED/High School or higher,upon release, had a higher employmentrate, lower unemployment rate, and

13

lower criminal activity rate at twelvemonths than those releasees who had lessthan a GED" (also see Schumacker,Anderson, and Anderson 1990).Similarly, a study in Florida showed thatamong inmates released between 1986and 1988, those who completed anacademic program while in prison weremuch less likely to recidivate thanmembers of the general prison population(Correctional Education School Authority1990). In earlier studies in Delaware(Zink 1970) and in Ohio (Cochran 1965),participants in correctional educationprograms fared significantly better onrelease than did nonparticipants. Morerecently, studies in Alabama (Cogburn1988) and in New York (New York State1989, 1992) produced similar findings.'

Along somewhat different lines, Anderson(1981:22) found in Illinois that "paroleeswho were enrolled in academic coursework while at the institution weresignificantly more likely to takevocational or further academic coursework while on parole." Similar findingswere discovered in Texas in a prisonprogram titled "Reading to ReduceRecidivism." Nearly 75 percent of theparticipants in this program continued toparticipate in the community programafter release, as compared with 15 to 20percent of parolees in other programs.The success of the program was creditedto the design of the prison program: itcould be followed up easily in thecommunity. With respect to recidivism,preliminary reports suggest that thisprogram may be successful (State of Texas1992).

Since Martinson's publication, however,we find few studies that show nocorrelation between prison education andrecidivism. Johnson, Shearon, and Britton(1974), whose study was not included inMartinson's review, discovered that

5

female inmates who earned the GEDwhile in prison were no less likely torecidivate than inmates wlo did notparticipate in prison education. In astudy conducted in Canada, Rogers(1980) found no differences in recidivismbetween inmates who participated inprison adult education and those who didnot. Roundtree, Edwards, and Dawson(1982) studied the impact of education onmale inmates' self-esteem. Although theauthors implied that improvement inmathematical skills increased self-esteem,the results were not statisticallysignificant.'

As Table 2 shows, the methodologicaladequacy of the studies did notsystematically influence their outcomes.We reviewed seven recidivism studiesthat received a 3, our highest rating (theauthors received one point each for usinga control group, statistical controls, andtests of significance). Three of thesestudies (Anderson 1981; Johnson et al.1974; Roundtree et al. 1982) revealed nocorrelation between education andrecidivism; the remaining four (Cochran1965; Cogburn 1988; New York State1989, 1992) showed strong correlations.

Only one of the studies that merited a 3for methodological rigor (Anderson 1981)focused on the correlation betweenprecol lege academic correctionaleducation and (1) postreleaseemployment and (2) postreleaseparticipation in education. Participationin correctional education did not increasethe probability of success in postreleaseemployment, but it did lead to greaterparticipation in education after release.Yet the other studies we found thatfocused on these two relationshipsgenerated consistent findings (i.e., inversecorrelations between education andrecidivism) and were relatively soundmethodologically (each received a rating

14

6

of 2). Therefore, we conclude, mostempirical research indicates thatprecollege education leads to morefavorable patterns of employ-ment andpostrelease education among participants.

At the same time, however, we found noresearch that focused on the relationshipbetween precollege education and areduction in disciplinary problems duringincarceration.

College education. Like high schooleducation, participation in collegecorrectional programs is likely to producebenefits for inmates and (by implication)for society. Numerous studies haveshown a clear and fairly consistentcorrelation between collegiate studies andrecidivism, and between college andvariables measuring personal growth. Atthe same time, some critics have pointedout methodological weaknesses in theresearch, and caution againstoveroptimistic interpretations:

Studies of the relationship betweenprison higher education andrecidivism give mixed reviews of theimpact of prison college programs onrecidivism. Some of the studies areflawed by serious methodologicalproblems. Control groups aresometimes not well-matched, samplesizes are often small, and "time atrisk" often differs for the subjects inthe research. Given a collection ofstudies of such disparate quality, thequestion of the efficacy of prisonhigher education remains (Lockwood1991:188).

Most studies report an inverse relation-ship between college education andrecidivism. (See Table 3). Reporting ona study of a prison program of theUniversity of Victoria ',British Columbia),Duguid (1981; also see A yers et al. 1980)

reported that only 14 percent of theinmates who participated in the programreturned to prison within three years; therate for nonparticipants was 51 percent.Furthermore, the former students "showedimpressive sophistication in their thinkingon law and politics, criminal behavior,and family relations" (Duguid 1981:65).

Inmates in Maryland who had earned atleast 12 credits in a community collegeprison program were much less likelythan nonstudents to recidivate (Blackburn1981). Several studies conducted in NewYork State generated similar results. Forinstance, inmates who earned a collegedegree while incarcerated were less likelyto recidivate, but, as the authors pointout, their success may have been dueonly partly to their participation incollege. These inmates also may havesucceeded because they were "moremotivated and/or competent than thosewho do not complete these programs . .

. these same factors are related to theirfuture adjustments on parole" (Thorpe,MacDonald, and Bala 1984:87). In

another statewide study in New York, 26percent of inmates who earned a collegedegree in 1986-1987 had been returnedto state custody by February 1991; thecorresponding figure for nongraduateswas 45 percent (New York State

1991:1).6

ir

In addition to these studies, research inAlabama found relative success withrespect to recidivism (O'Neil 1990);studies conducted in Ohio revealed lowerrecidivism and better employment historyupon release (Holloway and Moke 1986).Again, in Maryland, lower recidivism wasthe result of participation in a collegeeducation program (Hagerstown juniorCollege 1982; State of Maryland 1989).In Oklahoma, lower recidivism rates wereobserved, but inmates in educationprograms were not involved in fewer

disciplinary actions than nonparticipantsduring their incarceration (Langenbach etal. 1990). In Wisconsin, collegeattendees were found generally to adjustbetter to parole conditions (Knepper1990).

A few studies, however, found no supportfor the hypothesis that college educationleads to reduction in recidivism and toother outcomes. In one Canadian study,researchers discovered no difference inrecidivism rates between former studentsand other inmates, but reported,according to prison staff members, that

jpkogram inmates had betterdisciplinary records than they hadbefore starting school. Someadministrators felt that the programhad a stabilizing effect on the prisonbecause of the commitment whichthe inmates had to make to theirstudies (Linden et al. 1984:72).

At the same time, Gendreau andassociates (1985) showed thatparticipation in the University of Victoriaprogram at Matsqui Penitentiary did notlead to improved disciplinary recordsamong inmates. They dismiss this findingby arguing that the rate of misconduct inthat particular prison is so low that anyreduction cannot be statisticallysignificant; instead, alternative measuresof institutional adjustment should be used(e.g., the frequency of inmates'.grievances). Similarly, in a studyconducted in New York State, researchersfound little support for the theory thatcollege education reduces recidivism;indeed, persons with more than 60college credits were more likely to bereincarcerated than those with fewer than30 credits (Lockwood 1991).7

As in the case of precollege academicprison education, the methodological

7

rigor of studies does not invariablypredict the outcomes of the studies. Asshown in Table 3, we gave six studiesour highest methodology rating; of thesesix, four (Blackburn 1981; New YorkState 1991, 1992; O'Neil 1990) showeda strong inverse relationship betweencollege education and recidivism, whiletwo (Knepper 1990; Linden et al. 1984)showed no relationship. The findingsthus are somewhat mixed, but themethodological weaknesses identified bycritics cannot explain, in themselves, whysome programs succeeded and others didnot.

The available studies on the relationshipbetween college education andpostrelease employment and educationare methodologically weak, but consist-ently show positive consequences forsociety. We recommend reservingjudgment on these two outcomes untilmore rigorous studies are conducted.

No definite conclusions can be drawnconcerning the relationship betweencorrectional participation in collegeprograms and prerelease disciplinaryproblems. Of the three studies we foundon this subject, two weremethodologically sound but generatedcontradictory findings. Linden et al.(1984) showed the expected inversecorrelation; Langenbach et al. (1990)disclosed no correlation betweenenrollment in prison-based collegeprograms and prisoners' misconduct.

Vocational Education

In his "nothing works" article, Martinson(1974) claimed that vocational educationproduced no positive consequences.Again, however, his conclusion wasbased on little evidence. Indeed, in thesingle study discussed by Martinson that

16

8

addressed the issue most directly,Gearhart and associates (1967), found acorrelation between vocational trainingand lower recidivism but only "when atrainee succeeded in finding a job relatedto his area of training" (Martinson1974:13). Martinson interpreted thisfinding as evidence that "skilldevelopment programs fail because whatthey teach bears so little relationship toan offender's subsequent life outsideprison" (1974:13).

Most of the research conducted in recentyears shows a correlation betweenvocational training and a variety ofoutcomes generally considered positivefor eithe,- society or correctionalinstitutions: lower recidivism rates, lowerparole revocation rates, better postreleaseemployment patterns, and betterinstitutional disciplinary records. (See

Table 4). Studying determinants of parolesuccess in a midwestern state, Andersonand associates (1991) showed that amongseveral other factors, participation inacademic and vocational programs wascorrelated positively with successfulparole. These researchers (Schumacker,Anderson, and Anderson 1990) alsofound that "completers" of vocationalprograms had better employment ratesand fewer arrests than noncompleters. Inan earlier study, Anderson (1981) foundthat vocational training leads to longerpostrelease employment, fewer arrests,and fewer parole revocations.

Alston (1981) studied the impact ofvocational programs in Texas, and foundevidence for lower recidivism rates

among inmates who participated.Participants also broke fewer rules whileincarcerated, a finding that Alstonexplains as the result of "more positiveimpulse control" (1981:9). Saylor andGaes (1992) reported very similar findingsin research on federal penitentiaries:

inmates who received vocational trainingwhile in prison showed "betterinstitutional adjustment" (fewer ruleviolations) than those who did not receivesuch training, were more likely tocomplete stays in a halfway house, wereless likely to have their paroles revoked,and were more likely to be employed.

Three other studies, however, contradictthese findings. In a study involvinginmates released from correctionalfacilities in Oklahoma, graduates ofvocational programs recidivated soonerthan members of the control group,namely inmates who did not participatein any of the programs (Davis and Chown1986). Unfortunately, the authors did notreport results of statistical significancetests.

Downes, Monaco, and Schreiber (1989)and Markley, Flynn, and Bercaw-Dooen(1983) conducted similar studies, butthey, unlike Davis and Chown, madestatistical tests to determine thesignificance of differences betweengroups. Furthermore, the study byMarkley and associates is noteworthybecause their control and experimentalgroups were more closely matched thanthose in many other studies. Theirexperimental group included inmateswho completed at least three-fourths ofthe skills training program for which theywere selected; the control groupconsisted of inmates who had beenselected for training but could notparticipate because not enough trainingslots were available. By using suchinmates for the control group, the authorswere able to control more precisely fordifferences in the study participants'backgrounds. In this way they eliminatedsome of the competing factors that couldaffect the outcome of the research. Theyfound that vocational-technical trainingdid not increase postrelease employment

success, nor did it reduce recidivismrates. Furthermore, they found that only40 percent of the training participantsfound work related to their training.

In sum, most of these studies indicatereductions in rates of recidivism, betteremployment histories, and fewerdisciplinary problems among inmateswho receive vocational training, but atleast two recent and well-designed studiesshow that training does not produce theseresults. It is conceivable that in thefuture, all methodologically rigorousstudies will find support for the latterfinding. Such an outcome, however, ishighly unlikely: We found several recentstudies of sound design that revealedstrong inverse correlations betweenparticipation in vocational education andthe various outcomes. Anderson (1981)received our highest rating and showed adecrease in recidivism, as did Cochran(1965) and Anderson, Schumacker, andAnderson (1991) (see Table 4). Similarly,Saylor and Gaes (1992) found betterpostrelease employment patterns andfewer prerelease disciplinary problemsamong vocational trainees.

We found no studies focusing onvocational education and postreleaseparticipation in education. Research onthis issue is needed.

Social Education

Some educational programs incorrectional institutions deal with theacquisition of skills that sometimes arecalled "life skills" and that fall under theheading of "social education." Althoughsocial education is defined in variousways (and many different skills areincluded under "life skills"), advocates ofsuch programs agree that inmates aredeficient in the skills needed for copingwith daily stresses:

9

Social education as we define it is anorganized effort to furnish factualinformation to the individual in thoseareas of social and emotionalinteraction in which his past faultyattitudes have caused him difficultyand to suggest methods by which hecan effect a more satisfying andsocially acceptable way of living(Baker 1973:241).

Inmates must be taught these skills inorder to adjust to the pressures of lifeafter release; if they do not acquire theseskills, recidivism will result (Burchard andLane 1982).

A few studies examine the relationshipbetween education in social skills andvarious outcomes. Marshall, Turner, andBarbaree (1989) show that inmates whoreceived training in problem-solvingskills, assertiveness and interpersonalfunctioning, and practical skills in livingdeveloped greater self-esteem, becamemore assertive, less concerned aboutbeing evaluated negatively, and moresocially skilled. Furthermore, theseresearchers reported that the programsmade particbants more empathetic andreduced psychopathy. No data wereavailable, however, to allow us todetermine whether these changes led tolower recidivism rates upon release.

Moral development, say some observers,is related to development of social skills.According to this argument, inmates mustbe encouraged in moral development inorder to reduce recidivism; in this waythey learn to make moral rather thanhedonistic decisions (Duguid 1986; Fox1989; Michalek 1988; Tope and Warthan1986). Unfortunately, most of theavailable writing on this topic is basedmore on reasoning than on research. Anargument for this training can be made onlogical grounds, but opposing arguments

18

10

are easily constructed (Minahan 1990).According to research conducted inCanada, however, inmates who wereexposed to the Living Skills program ofthe Correctional Service of Canada adjustto life after release etter than otheri n mates.'

Finally, Hamm (1991) reported someencouraging results from a prisonintervention program aimed at reducingviolence against women. Men who hadcommitted such acts of violenceparticipated in a program whose purposewas to teach that "women must not,under any circumstance, become thevictims of violence" (Hamm 1991:67).Hamm reports that 80 percent of thegraduates of this program were notrearrested during the 18-month periodfollowing their release; unfortunately,however, his study did not include acontrol group of abusers who were notexposed to the program.

Discussion

In an overview of the effectiveness ofprison education programs, Linden andPerry (1983) pointed out that the 1950sand 1960s were a period of optimism,whereas the 1970s were characterized byMartinson's assessment that nothingworks. On the basis of an additionaldecade of research, they argued thatprison education can produce desirableresults:

Most evaluations have shown thatinmates make substantialimprovements in learning, but thisdoes not necessarily have an impacton rates of post-release employmentand recidivism. The review of theliterature suggests that programs willbe most likely to succeed if they areintensive, if they can establish analternative community within the

prison, and if they offer post-releaseservices to inmates (Linden and Perry1983:43).

Our own assessment, based on yetanother decade of research, is quitesimilar. Numerous studies show acorrelation between participation incorrectional education and variousoutcomes. Furthermore, even though themethodologically less rigorous studies(e.g., those without control groups orwith inadequate matches between controland experimental subjects) are likely toshow a correlation, there also existenough scientifically sound studies tomake us confident that these positivefindings are not statistical artifacts.

Drawing from Linden and Perry's (1983)review of the literature, from Rice andassociates' (1980) review of 10 successfulcorrectional vocational programs, andfrom our own review, we can identifyseveral factors that explain why someprograms are more successful than othersin achieving their stated goals:

19

The more extensive the educationalprogram, the more likely it is toachieve its stated program objectives.For instance, research in New YorkState showed that inmates whoearned the GED were less likely torecidivate than those who attendedGED classes but did not earn thediploma (New York State 1989).Programs that are separate from therest of the prison are more likely tosucceed. "Successful programs had adesignated area for providingvocational education and onlyvocational education" (Rice et al.1980:12; emphasis in original).Programs that provide follow-up afterrelease are more likely to succeed.With respect to vocational education,"successful programs had systematic

procedures for providing placementservices that emphasized employercontact" (Rice et al. 1980:12).Programs that are successful inattracting an appropriate audienceare more likely to achieve theirintended.objectives. For instance, the"Reading to Reduce Recidivism"program in Texas was hamperedbecause it was designed for inmateswho would serve short sentences andwould be released quickly into thecommunity, whereas the mediansentence served by programparticipants as 15 years (State ofTexas 1992).With respect to vocational education,programs that provide skills relevantto the contemporary job market aremore likely to achieve their statedobjectives. Administrators claim thattheir programs offer inmates "salableskills which will enhance theirprobability of obtaining andmaintaining employment in the freeworld" (Windham School System, nodate:12), but critics often maintainthat vocational training programs failbecause "what they teach bears solittle relationship to an offender'ssubsequent life outside of prison"(Martinson 1976:13).

As we explained earlier in this report, it isprobably unrealistic to expect prisoneducation to offset all social andpsychological reasons for recidivating, forbeing unable to find or keep a job, fornot continuing educational progress afterrelease, or for having disciplinaiyproblems in prison. In an overview of 71studies that analyzed predictors ofrecidivism, Pritchard found that

[a]n offense of auto theft, thepresence of prior convictions, stabilityof employment, age at first arrest,living arrangements, current income,

11

history of opiate use, and history ofalcohol abuse appear to be the moststable predictors of recidivism(1979:19).

These findings are supported by a 1991study of recidivism patterns conducted bythe Texas Department of Criminal justice.With respect to demographic traits,releasees who were young whenreleased, who were black, male, andsingle, who had little formal education,who were raised by people other thantheir natural parents, and who had familymembers involved in crime were morelikely to recidivate than their demo-graphic counterparts. Furthermore, theyounger they were at first arrest,conviction, and incarceration, the morelikely they were to recidivate (Eisenberg1991).

In sum, the research shows a fair amountof support for the hypotheses that adultacademic and vocational correctionaleducation programs lead to fewerdisciplinary violations duringincarceration, reductions in recidivism, toincreases in employment opportunities,and to increases in participation ineducation upon release. Future retlearch,however, must employ more precisecontrols for extraneous variables that mayhave an independent effect on the variousoutcomes. Without adequate controltechniques, it is difficult to speakdefinitively about the impact ofcorrectional education programs. In

addition, future research should focus onquestions not addressed or answered inthe literature. This research primarilyshould analyze the relationships betweenprecollege and college education anddisciplinary problems during incar-ceration, between college education andpostrelease employment and education,and between vocational education andpostrelease participation in education.

20

12

Notes

1. For an excellent example of a study whoseauthors control for this problem, see thevarious reports on the Post Release

Employment Project (PREP) of the FederalBureau of Prisons (Federal Bureau of Prisons1985, especially pp. 9-12; Saylor and Gaes1987, 1992).

2. See the appendix for a list of publications thatwe examined but did not include in thisreview.

1 The study that Martinson identified, byGearhart and associates (1967), deals morewith vocational education than with academiceducation, and is discussed below.

4. The correlation between adult secondaryeducation and recidivism also has beenobserved among probationers. Walsh (1985)found that probationers participating in GEDpreparation programs were less likely thannonparticipants to be rearrested; if rearrested,they were less criminally involved (fewer andless serious crimes).

5. For a recent review of literature that criticizesthe presumed positive effects of education oncorrectional outcomes, see Jengeleski (1984).

6. For another, earlier study in New York Stateshowing support for the recidivism hypothesis,see Wolf and Sy Ives (1981).

7. According to the author, this research provesthat education does not lead to an increase ininmates' moral developmentat least, notenough to prevent recidivism.

8. Numerous articles, reports, and books havebeen published on this research. For anoverview consult Fabiano (1991), Ross andFabiano (1985), and Ross, Fabiano, and Ross(1988).

21

CHAPTER 2A LIMITED CAPACITY TO TREAT:EXAMINING THE EFFECTS OFPRISON POPULATION CONTROL STRATEGIESON PRISON EDUCATION PROGRAMS

Abstract

The number of prisoners across the cow Ary hasincreased dramatically throughout the 1980s. Texasis one state that has felt the strain of prisonerpopulation pressures. To keep abreast with demand,more state prison units were built. However, newprisons were soon filled to capacity. This situationforced policy makers to implement a population capand an allocation formula. To keep the prisonerpopulation within the cap, prisoners were releasedearly and time served declined rapidly over thecourse of the 1980s. These latter consequencesseverely impacted the ability of the Windham SchoolSystem to deliver prison education programs. Thedata showed that one in seven inmates was releasedprior to taking a vocational certification test. Variouspolicy options are then explored.

Introduction

It is fast becoming trite to speak of prisonsas a growth industry in America (Christie1993). The steady expansion of theincarcerated felon population over the pastdecade has been staggering. For example,the number of prisoners in Americaincreased by 115 percent or from 329,000to 710,000 between 1980 and 1989. Toaccommodate this deluge of prisoners,forty eight states and the Federal Bureau ofPrisons constructed 975 new correctionalinstitutions (Allen and Simonsen 1989).However, despite this expansion, by 1989,thirty-seven states were under some formof court order related to crowding (Byrneand Kelly 1989). In short, demand forprison bed space has far exceeded supply.

In a scramble to manage the rising tide ofpersons under correctional supervision

and the reality of judicial intervention,many states implemented a wide range ofcommunity-based supervision programs.Illustrative of such programs are electronicmonitoring, intensive probation, restitutioncenters, house arrest, boot camps, andcommunity service (Byrne, Lurigio, andPetersilia 1992; Dilulio 1991; Lilly 1987;Morris and Tonry 1990).

To date, virtually all journalistic,academic, and lay commentary on thegrowth of state and federal imprisonmenthas focused on such readily visible issuesas the explosion of prison budgets, therising cosi prisoner care, net widening,unmanageable parole caseloads, and over-crowding. Although the capacity topunish has been well-described, analysisor discussion has not focused on a prisonorganization's capacity to "treat"incarcerated offenders. Prison growthmost certainly means more prison officersand cells. But can the same be said forprison treatment programs?

Prisons serve the dual purpose ofconfining criminal offenders (ensuringpublic safety) and returning them to thefree community to lead law-abiding lives(treatment). Though scholars haverecently questioned the efficacy of prisontreatment programs (Logan and Gaes1992; Cullen and Gilbert 1982), the factremains that correctional systems investmillions of dollars and the time ofthousands of staff in treatment efforts.Such investment of resources will

13

14

probably continue in the short term.Moreover, specific treatment programswithin various institutional settings have tosome extent proven successful (Gendreauand Ross 1987)

Prisons perform varied functions in oursociety: incapacitation, deterrence, andpunishment. This paper argues, however,that the prison is also a service deliveryorganization in which inmate treatmentprograms are not immune from shifts inthe larger political environment. Morespecifically, this paper examines theeffects of prison capacity constraints on aprisoner education program in the Texasprison system. Our interest lies in theeffects of a prisoner population cap on theability of the Windham School System,one of the largest and most well-regardedprisoner education programs in America,to deliver a prisoner education program.But, first we briefly examine the Texasprison population crisis, the steps justicesystem policy makers initiated to keep theprison system open and in compliancewith a judicially-mandated population cap,and the implementation of a prisonerquota system. Next, we examine therelationship between time in prison andtime spent in educational and vocationalprograms. Finally, we discuss severalpolicy options for dealing with the currentdefects in the educational programavailable to prison and prison educationadministrators.

Background

Texas, like most other states, has

experienced enormous prisonerpopulation growth. In this section, wedescribe the prison crisis and the varioussteps state criminal justice policy makersused to manage the burgeoning prisonerpopulation. This section specificallyaddresses: (1) measures state officials tookto con' I prisoner inflow; (2)

23

development of the prison allocationformula; and (3) results of the populationcontrol policies and ramifications forprisoner education programs.

Early Attempts at Population Control

Between 1971 and 1990, the total numberof Texas prisoners increased almost 300percent, from 15,418 in 1971 to 45,000 in1990. Between 1980-1990, 38,357 bedsor 20 new prison units were added to theprison system. Then, too, the daily costper inmate increased from $8.64 in 1980to $34.07 in 1989 (Texas Department ofCorrections, Annual Overview 1989, p.79). State correctional spending increasedfrom $300 million in fiscal 1982 to $802million in 1989, a 167 percent increase injust seven years (Bullock 1990, p. 2). The1990-91 correctional budget was $2.02billion, a thirty-nine percent increase overthe previous biennium. Most of thesenew appropriations went to new prisonconstruction. In the late 1980s,lawmakers also authorized two contractsfor four private 500 bed inmate pre-releasecenters (Ethridge 1990).

In conjunction with massive prisonconstruction, various "front door"measures were implemented to divertconvicted offenders from the penitentiary.For example, probation services wereexpanded to divert eligible convictedfelons from prison. Roughly 80,000convicted felons were sentenced in 1980to probation. This figure increased to over291,156 by 1989, or twelve percent of thenation's total (Jankowski 1991). Even so,these efforts failed to reduce local demandfor prison beds.

The most controversial policies designedto reduce prison admissions, the PrisonManagement Act or PMA and the RuizCrowding Stipulation, specified that theTexas prison system could not operate in

excess of ninety-five percent of capacity(Crouch and Marquart 1989). Prisonadministrators were required to refuse allnew admissions until enough prisonerseligible for early release on parole werereleased to maintain the legally specifiedcapacity. The "back door" was opened,like an emergency exit, to relieve theinmate population pressures at the 'rontdoor.

Legislators compounded the situation byenacting additional laws in the mid-1980sto lengthen prison sentences (e.g., flat 5and 10 year sentences for certaincategories of drug offenses) which addedmore strain on the prison system.Offenders given 10 year or longersentences were legally eliminated fromprobation consideration; such offendershad to be imprisoned. These "get tough"actions actually required the state to buildmore prisons and the release of otherprisoners so as to keep the prison systemat or below ninety-five percent capacity(Bullock 1990).

The PMA was originally intended to avoidovercrowding and its ill effects onprisoners and staff (Gaes and McGuire1985). Despite the expansion of prisoncapacity and probation services, Texascounties continued to send large numbersof convicted felons to prison. Demand forprison bed space did not diminish; newprison units were filled to capacity soonafter the ribbon cutting ceremonies. As aresult, between February 1987 andSeptember 1987, the prison system closed(or refused to accept new admissions)twenty-one times. In the end, the PrisonManagement Act became a "back door"prison population control device (Bullock1990).

1 5

The Allocation Formula

Prison closures resulted in a substantialincrease in the convicted felon populationin county jails. The Texas Commission onJail Standards estimated that in November1989, Texas's largest county jails housedabout 11,000 convicted felons awaitingtransfer to state prisons. Inmates wereliterally waiting in line to get into prison.To cope with these new pressures, statelegislators consolidated aduit prbbation,adult corrections, and parole agencies intothe Texas Department of Criminal Justice.Lawmakers also mandated a prisonerquota system or allocation formula inwhich each county was assigned, on thebasis of a formula, a fixed number ofprisoners who could be transferred to thestate t.;.ison system (Thurman, Cuvelier,and Marquart 1990).

This formula was designed to regulate andsystematically control prison admissions.It consisted of the following six items: (1)the proportion of ihe state's prisonadmissions in the preceding twelvemonths (historical factor); (2) theproportion of the F cate's violent indexcrime in the precbing twelve months; (3)the proportion of the state's total indexcrime in the preceding twelve months; (4)the proportion of the state's total arrestsunder the Texas Controlled Substance Actin the preceding twelve months; (5) theproportion of tl-,Es state's populationresiding in the county; (6) the proportionof the state's total unemployment (TexasBoard of Criminal Justice, AllocationFormula Overview, May 16, 1991). Eventhough it was not pretested in any wayand despite protests from county sheriffs,the formula became state law on August31, 1990 (Cuvelier, Huang, Marquart, and

2,1

16

Burton 1993). Moreover, the citizenrywas not allowed to express its opinionabout the development or purpose of theprisoner quota system, or how the formulamight affect public safety (Jacobs 1983).

Results of Population Control Policies

The intended and manifest result of thepopulation cap was the early release ofthousands of prisoners prior to expirationof their sentences. Administrative actionsbent on compliance with the populationcap resulted in the wholesale parole ofprisoners. Table 5 illustrates the rapidturnover of the Texas prisoner populationbetween 1980-1990. In 1980, just over7,000 Texas inmates were paroled, whileby 1985, the figure had grown to almost9,500. By 1990, over 45,000 prisonerswere released from state prisons on parole(Kelly and Ekland-Olson 1991, p. 604).According to Jack Kyle, chairman of theTexas Board of Pardons and Paroles,"during this period of time [late-1980s]parole in Texas became an open door"(Robison 1992, p. 1). By way ofcomparison, the national parole rate in1983 was 135 parolees per 100,000population and increased to 248 in 1989.In Texas, the 1983 rate was 290 and in1989 the figure leaped to 758 (Kelly andEkland-Olson 1991, pp. 604-605). Thedata in Table 5 also show that by 1990,the prisoner population nearly reachedcomplete replacement, with as manyprisoners being released as were admittedannual ly.

One unintended outcome of the earlyreleases from prison was a rapid downturnin time served in prison. The dataindicate that the average flat time servedfor all inmates released from prison in1980 was nearly three years, but by 1986,this figure fell to twenty-four months, andby 1990, the average time served dippedto seventeen months (Bodapati 1993).

Time served in prison by offensecategories is even more revealing. Forexample, Texas drug offenders released in1980 served an average of two years,while by 1990 drug offenders served justseven months behind bars. Incomparison, a national survey of inmatesfound that drug offenders °expected" toserve an average of thirty-six monthsbefore being released from prison (Beck,Gilliard, Greenfeld, Harlow, Hester,Jankowski, Snell, and Stephan 1993, p. 7).Because of this situation in Texas, someconvicted offenders opted for a prisonterm (and a qu; k release on parole) ratherthan a lengthy term in some form ofcommunity supervision (Crouch 1992).

These data on parole releases and timeserved illustrate that Texas criminal justicepolicy makers were overwhelmed by theprison crisis. All activity and attentionwas di rected toward mai ntainingcompliance with the population cap. Theconstruction of additional prison unitsfailed to relieve population pressures. But,what effect did the prison crisis have uponprisoner education? We turn now to thisquestion, beginning with a briefdescription of the Windham SchoolSystem.

The Windham School System

Education, whether it be religious,vocational, or academic instruction, hasbeen part of correctional treatmentprograms since the inception of thepenitentiary (Rothman 1971; Glaser 1964).Correctional administrators and citizensalike have long regarded such instructionas an important tool in preparing inmatesto lead law-abiding lives following releaseto the free community. Most prisonsystems across the nation have prisoneducation programs and Texas is noexception.

25

The Texas state legislature created theWindham School System in 1969 to"provide the opportunity for students toacquire academic and vocational skillsnecessary for any adult" .(TexasPerformance Review 1992, p xi i i).

Windham's mission was, and is, to raiseinmate literacy levels as well as to provideprisoners with vocational skills to enablethem to join the work force upon releasefrom prison. Both goals were aimed atreducing recidivism. The WSS is legallyan independent school system like anyother local Texas community schoolsystem. Each prison unit has its ownprincipal, teachers (all certified andaccredited according to state regulations),and student prisoners.

The WSS currently offers basic adult andhigh school equivalency, bilingual, specialeducation, and a wide variety ofvocational classes (e.g., automotive,refrigeration, woodworking). Bothclassroom and in-cell programs areavailable to prisoners. Death Rowinmates, for example, are eligible for in-cell classes. Most important, the originallegislation required all inmates who didnot possess a high school degree and whoscored below the sixth grade literacy levelto enroll in the education program.

The size and scope of the WSS isimmense. In 1985, it providededucational services at 26 prison units,with an average daily attendance of 6,420inmates. By 1991, this figure grew to 36institutions and 10,393 inmates. Theselatter figures underscore the rapid growthof the Texas prison system in general. Thecosts of operating this program are large.Bi-annual operating expenditures for1984-85 were $17,369,292 and grew to$31,255,313 in 1991-1992 (AnnualPerfo, mance Reports, Windham SchoolSystem). Finally, the WSS has over thepast two decades established a national

17

reputation among correctional educationprogram administrators.

Sources of Data

Data for this analysis were obtained froma larger project that evaluated the effect ofthe Windham School System's prisonereducation program on inmate institutionaland post release conduct. Data werecollected from two primary sources, theTexas Department of Criminal justiceInstitutional Division Annual Reports andthe Windham School System. rom theprison system, we collected data (e.g.,prison number, average sentence length,average time served in prison) on 73,990"new receives" or inmates admitted for thefirst time for a new felorn' conviction and66,160 prisoners who exited (i.e., paroledor discharged) Texas prisons between1990 and 1992.

The time frame under study (1990-1992)was selected because it contained therichest, reliable, most detailed, andcomprehensive WSS information oninmate program participation andindividual performance. A wealth ofinformation on individual inmates wascollected from the Windham SchoolSystem data files, including generalinformation such as the person's prisonnumber, educational level at admission toprison, types of classes attended duringconfinement, dates of testing, whether ornot the inmate-student passed andreceived a certificate, the number of in-class participation hours, and unit changesin grade levels.

We matched (by prison number) the WSSdata to the larger prison data set of newreceives and discharges in order toidentify prisoners who participated in WSSacademic and vocational courses between1990 and 1992. This procedure identified21,388 academic enrollments and 6,919

26

18

inmates who participated in vocationalcourses.

WSS academic programs are gearedtoward raising the functioning level ofprogram participants. Most important, theWSS regards a one grade level increase foran inmate participant (e.g., fifth to sixthgrade) to be a significant personal andorganizational accomplishment. The WSSmeasures the performance and effective-ness of the vocational courses by the totalnumber of certificates generated.

Texas prisoners, like those in most otherstate prison systems, are not randomlyassigned to prison units, instead they areplaced in specific institutions on the basisof criminal history, age, and prior prisonexperience. Inmates, because of theirvaried backgrounds and levels of risk,require different types of institutionalsecurity.

Prison classification personnel in Texassort all new admissions into the eightsegregative classes which are identified inTable 6. "First offenders" are felonsadmitted to the state prison system for thefirst time, although many of them havecommitted previous undetected offensesor were in lower forms of punishment.Recidivists generally refer to prisoners whohave been previously imprisoned no morethan two times in an adult institution.Habituals and malcontents (classes IIC andIII) are inmates who have previously beenincarcerated more than three times andare over the age of twenty-five. Class IIIinmates constituted a very small group andwere eliminated from subsequent analyses.

The Window of Opportunity

The population cap forced justice officialsto take extraordinary steps to keep the

Texas prison system at or below 95percent capacity. What impact did thisstructural constraint have on state-supported prisoner educational andvocational programs? Did the drop intime-served in prison affect the WSS? Foran intervention program to "work," clientsmust have the opportunity to experienceor participate in the entire treatmentregimen. We define the "window ofopportunity" as the time necessary for aninmate to achieve a one grade change inthe academic program or receivecertification in a vocational course. Thisdefinition comports with WSS programexpectations and performance goals.Table 7 shows the average time-served inprison, along with the average time it tookan inmate to achieve a one level gradechange in the academic program orcertification in a vocational course. Table7 indicates that during 1990-1992,prisoners in three of six segregative classeswere not incarcerated a sufficient length oftime to advance one grade level. Further,classes IB and IIC served barely enoughtime to progress one grade level. In otherwords, the "window of opportunity" or thetime it takes to advance an inmate's gradelevel was structurally constrained by thelack of ti me-served in prison.Compounding this problem was the factthat twenty-seven percent of the studentsin 1991-1992 required by law to enroll inremedial classes had to wait for 'anopening due largely to inadequate classspace (Texas Performance Review 1992, p.11-18).

The data reported in Table 7 suggests thatthe average time it takes to achievevocational certification was well withinthe range of time served in prison. Firstappearances might suggest that inmates inthe vocational program have more thanenough time to complete a course beforerelease, but this would be an inaccurateconcl usi on.

2 7

Vocational courses, like their academiccounterparts, were subject to a delayfactor. There were a limited number ofvocational courses and a limited numberof slots available, thus inmates had toqueue up and wait a period of time beforeparticipating in a particular course. Table8 indicates the time the average inmate(by segregative category) was required towait in days and in months beforebeginning a vocational course. In generalthere was a six-month wait before theactual first vocational class day. Whenthis delay is added to the average time tocertification (see Table 7) along withaverage time served, it can be seen thatprisoners were in jeopardy of leavingprison before completing a particularvocational course. This situationrepresents a classic example of queuingtheory (Saaty 1961). Further analysisrevealed that during the time period underinvestigation, 974 out of 6,919 prisonerswere released from prison whileparticipating in a vocational course. In

other words, one out of seven inmatesenrolled in a vocational course began itand then exited prison beforecertification.'

The data also allowed the examination ofanother variable affecting time served inprison- time spent in the county jail. As

already noted, the population controlmeasures combined to slow down prisonadmissions but in turn created a severebacklog in the county jails. According toRobison (1993), the jail backlog inNovember 1993 was 28,426. Between1990-1992, prisoners served twenty-sixpercent of their sentences in the countyjails. By the time many inmates reachedprison, one-quarter of their sentence hadalready been served. This situationseverely limited the window ofopportunity. In sum, the combined"trickle down" effects of populationcontrol policies and early releases severely

19

attenuated the original WSS performancemeasures.

The early release program was a randomprocess, hence it would be unfair tocontend that prison officials enrolledinmates in classes, knowing full well itwould be impossible for them to completethem. The decision to release was anadministrative one beyond the control ofclassification personnel and prisoneducators. In short, the data stronglysuggest that prison personnel enrolledinmates in WSS programs with theexpectation that they would completethem, but those expectations were/frustrated by early release practices.

Policy Options

Inmates in Texas continue to serve only afraction of their original sentences. Thisreduction in time-served has had majorunintended consequences for theeducational and vocational programsoffered by the Windham School System.Our data indicate that the window ofopportunity for inmates (in a number ofcustody categories) in both educationaland vocational programs has beenvirtually closed. The time it takes to effecta one grade level change or to achievevocational certification surpasses theaverage time served in prison. Policysolutions to rectify this situation are variedand pose additional dilemmas.

One option would be to extend timeserved in prison so that inmate studentscould be exposed to the entire course orprogram of study, but this poses majorfinancial and material problems. First,lengthening time served by twelvemonths, for example, would adverselyaffect prisoner turnover, existing prisonerbed space, and jeopardize compliancewith the population cap. More institutionswould have to be constructed to house a

20

larger, more static prisoner population,thus this option is not likely, given thecost of such a prison constructionprogram. Whether or not the publicwould endorse building prisons toenhance prisoner education is open toquestion. Few politicians are likely tostake their careers on a "prisons-for-education" platform. Increasing the time-served for certain categories of offendersfurther would not take full effect forseveral years, thus, in the meantime otheroptions must be developed and debatedby lawmakers and the public alike.

Second, increasing time served wouldcreate a "stacking" effect of inmateswaiting for the educational servicesafforded by the WSS, especially in thevocational courses. Third, the WSS couldhire additional staff and expand courseofferings, but this option (and the relatedexpenses of additional textbooks,classrooms, and trade machinery) wouldbe very costly.

The latter policy options obviously requiremore money. Their full political andeconomic implications remain unclear andrequire additional analysis well beyondthe scope of this paper. However, ourbrief discussion makes clear that moneyalone can not solve the current dilemma.Yet, two additional policy options withoutmajor fiscal requirements exist.

First, lawmakers could simply abolish theprisoner education program. Abolition,however, would pose significant socialcosts and raise serious issues about theabandonment of prison treatmentprograms as well as signaling a retreat toprisons-as-warehouses. Further, abolitionwould result in the termination ofthousands of WSS personnel and the endof a long-established prisoner treatmentprogram.

Often lost in the debate about prisoneducation programs are the importantinstrumental ends such activities serve Inprison governance, institutional stability,and control. Inmates who attend severalhours of class each day are busy andoccupied, rather than being idle. Inmateswho are busy and occupied are notsecurity problems. Abol ition ofeducational programs would mean thatadditional programs to keep the inmatesoccupied in some useful activity, (e.g.,inmate industries and other profit makingventures) would have to be funded,staffed, and implemented. Moreover, it isby no means certain that "replacement"programs could handle all the former WSSinmates.

Abolition, though a possibility, is notlikely. We are, therefore, left with onefinal policy optionthe practical one. Thedata presented here underscore the needfor improved resource management andthe development of more appropriateperformance measures for the WSS. In thefirst place, during the classificationprocess, prison and WSS personnel couldidentify inmates with the greatestlikelihood of completing various educationprograms. Given current structuralconstraints, prison staff would have toprioritize or implement eligibilityrequirements for specific WSS offerings.

The large and growing population ofprisoners in county jails also suggests thatthe prison classification process may haveto be transferred in part to the county jails.Classification personnel in jails couldidentify those inmates who could mostbenefit from the existing window ofopportunity. This action would mostdirectly aid the vocational programs.Prison educators might also examine howother states faced with a similar plightresponded to the situation and might alsoexplore the possibility of developing "fast

29

track" or intensive programs for offendersmost likely to be affected by early releasepolicies. Finally, prison and paroleauthorities could develop neweducational programs that bridge theprison and free community.

Discussion and Conclusions

This paper began with a discussion of theprisoner population crisis Texas. Weindicated that demand on a finite stateresource, in this case prisons, hasexhausted supply. State policy makersenacted various regulations to control theflow of prisoners from the counties.Maintaining compliance with the cap,however, was not without consequences.Crisis management led to additional crisesand unforeseen dilemmas. Oneunintended side effect was the earlyrelease of thousands of prisoners.Correctional policies implemented,however, to address one specific problemoftentimes have important and unforeseenside effects. Our findings indicated thatcorrectional policies aimed at regulatingprison populations had negativeconsequences for prison treatmentprograms. Effective correctional treatmentdepends, in a large part, on an available"window of opportunity," in whichoffenders have the necessary time toexperience the full effects of programs.The move to comply with the populationcap produced a situation whereby theaverage number of months in prison wasless than the average number of monthsneeded to advance one grade level or toattain vocational certification.Accordingly, the opportunity to benefitfrom educational programming escapedmany inmates.

This analysis underscores the prevailingcognitive dissonance which legislators,policy makers, and the public alike havetowards the prison (Burton, Dunaway, and

21

Kopache 1992). Should the prison be awarehouse? Should prisons treatoffenders? Do prisoners °deserve"treatment? What makes an effectiveprison education/training program? Is itpossible to strike a balance betweenpopulation caps and treatment programsfor offenders? Who should have the mostinfluence and power over prison policies?These are not new questions by anymeans but answers to them have not beenforthcoming. It is incumbent on policymakers to review potential consequences,both manifest and latent, before policiesare fully implemented (Jacobs 1984;Feeley and Sarat 1980).

The cost to the state for noncompliancewith judicially decreed populationmandates would be prohibitive in terms offines. However, the costs of closing thewindow of opportunity (in terms ofpossible reductions in recidivism, andproviding education and training for thetruly disadvantaged in our society)certainly solidifies the notion that prisonsare indeed warehouses. Returningunprepared and untrained prisoners to thefree community would also pose a threatto public safety. A balance must be struckbetween population control measures,inmate programming, and public safety.There are no easy choices.

Administrators of "free world" schooldistricts are increasingly required toreexamine their delivery system (e.g.,instituting the twelve month curriculum) tomeet the needs of a changing studentpopulation. Prison organizations andprisoner programs, like school districts,do not exist in a vacuum, insulated fromlegislative and judicial mandates. Inparticular, prison program administratorsmust increasingly be sensitive to theshifting nature of punishment and criminaljustice policy making.

'3 0

22

This paper has also demonstrated animportant lesson about the dynamics ofcorrectional policy making. Attempts tocontrol prisoner population levels canhave negative unintended consequencesfor entire prison organizations andindividual inmates alike. A longitudinalanalysis of prison systems with similarpopulation constraints would illuminatethe effects of such constraints on a widevariety of prisoner programming, activities,and budgets (Jacobs 1983). Students ofthe prison would also do well to pay moreattention to the latent or unintendedeffects of policy on all facets of the prisonorganization. Finally, charting the effectsof policy on the service delivery aspects ofprison organizations will increase ourunderstanding about the role andeffectiveness of treatment and theobligations of the state towardincarcerated citizens.

Note

1. The data also allowed the examination ofanother variable affecting time served in prisontime spent in the county jail. As already noted,the population control measures combined toslow down prison admissions but in turn createda severe backlog in the county jails. Accordingto Robison (1993), the jail backlog in November1993 was 28,426. Between 1990-1992,prisoners served twenty-six percent of theirsentences in the county jails. By the time manyinmates reached prison, one-quarter of theirsentence had already been served. Thissituation severely limited the window ofopportunity. In sum, the combined "trickledown" effects of population control policies andearly releases severely attenuated the originalWSS performance measures.

31.

CHAPTER 3THE EFFECTS OF ACADEMIC AND VOCATIONALPROGRAM PARTICIPATION ON INMATE& IC1-"AkIIINI le`lr cr rsrl 10- r*/^frers TIONsystat....kirvi".."... I /11,41.! MIC I INM-/Ank-EK11

Abstract

This study examined the prison behavior andpostrelease recidivism of more than 14,000 inmatesreleased from Texas prisons in 1991 and 1992.Comiiarisons were made between participants andnonparticipants in prison education programs on avariety of behavioral outcomes. The findings suggestthat these programs may be most effective whenintensive efforts are focused on the mosteducationally disadvantaged prisoners. I mpl ications

for correctional education policy and correctionalprogram research are discussed.

Introduction

Inmate education programs have been acentral feature of state correctional systemssince the 1930s (Clemmer, 1958).Beginning with "training schools" fordelinquents, the provision of academicand vocational education programs hasbecome almost a universal element ofincarceration. These programs address theglaring educational deficits that offenderspresent upon admission (Glaser, 1969).They also reinforce deeply held culturalbeliefs about the importance of educationfor achieving a productive and satisfyinglife.

Education programs within prisons alsohave several attributes that make themattractive to correctional administrators.They provide incentives to inmates insurroundings that are otherwise devoid ofconstructive activities, they provideexposure to positive civilian role models,and they engage inmates for many hoursin quiet, productive activity in a otherwisemonotonous institutional environment.Education programs are a key component

of what has been called "dynamicsecurity" within prisons.

In addition to these presumed benefits ofeducational programs for institutionalmanagement, corrections leaders hope thatupgrading offenders' educational levelswill increase their opportunities to leadcrime-free lives after release. Investmentsin correctional education programs arethought to bring rewards in the form oflower recidivism rates (Sharp, 1993). Thisresearch examines these assumptions in alarge, multiservice state prison educationsystem.

Our review of the scientific literaturesupports the view that adult academic andvocational correctional educationprograms may be associated with feWerdisciplinary violations duringincarceration, reductions in recidivism,and increased rates of employment andparticipation in education programs uponrelease. (See Chapter 1). These findings,however, are based on studies that oftenobserved small samples, employed widelyvarying definitions of concepts, usedvarying follow-up periods, and applieddiffering definitions of recidivism.

This study is part of a larger researchproject that examines the impact of prisoneducation programs in Texas, and extendsand expands the line of research describedin Chapter 1 above. The Prison EducationResearch Project (PERP) was designed toaddress questions about the effectivenessof educational programs offered by theWindham School System (Windham), the

32

23

24

educational programs division of the TexasDepartment of Criminal Justice-Institutional Division (TDCJ-ID).

Methodology

Ideally, a study of the effects of prisoneducation programs on inmates' behaviorwould involve needs assessment ofinmates entering prison, random allocationof inmates to programs that are matchedto each inmate's need, collection ofdetailed information on the inmates'performance from teachers' ratings andeducational test scores, collection ofdetailed information on other aspects ofthe inmates' prison experience based onprison records and interviews with theinmate, and extended observation of theinmates' postrelease behavior with regardto criminal activity, employment, andfurther involvement in educationalprograms. Obviously such a study wouldbe extremely expensive and time-consuming. In addition, postreleasefollow-up findings would be unavailablefor many years because of the nature ofthe data collection. Our approach wasdirected by the need for more timelyinformation, so we employed a design thatinvolved a naturally occurring, intactcomparison group (Rezmovic, 1979).

We selected a sample of 14,411 inmatesreleased from the Texas Department ofCriminal Justice - Institutional Divisionbetween March 1991 and December1992. The sample included all inmatesreleased on parole, mandatorysupervision, and expiration of sentence.The sample was limited to inmates whowere classified as newly received on thesentenced offense; released paroleviolators were not included in the sample.

The strategy of studying a release cohortoffers a number of advantages. Thesample is relatively large, capturing

inmates in different Windham programs aswell as inmates who did not participate inany educational programs. Also, theinmates in the sample had completed theirsentence, so their educational anddisciplinary experiences throughout theirprison stay could be investigated. Finally,the sample provides a contemporarypicture of the prison system whileallowing adequate time for a follow-up ofcriminal behavior in the community.

Having designated the release cohort, weobtained computerized informationmaintained by the TDCJ-ID and Windham.The TDCJ information covered social anddemographic variables (e.g., age, race,sex, marital status, educationalachievement), criminal history and currentoffense variables (e.g., conviction offense,sentence length, time served, priorincarceratiqns), and disciplinaryinvolvement (e.g., major and minorinfractions). We used backgroundinformation to describe the sample and toidentify differences between Windhamand non-Windham inmates. Theinformation on major and minordisciplinary infractions represents an

important outcome variable in theanalyses. The Windham School Systemprovided information on educational testscores and program involvement,regarding both the type of program andthe number of hours of participation.

We used return to prison as the primaryoutcome variable for the communityfollow-up. This information was providedby TDCJ-ID on a computer tape of prisonadmissions from January 1991 throughMarch 1994. By matching identificationnumbers of the released inmates againstthe admissions file, we identified inmatesin the sample who had been returned toprison, and calculated elapsed time toreadmission for recidivists. We used thisinformation to supplement the standard

33

recidivism variable, return to prison, byexamining whether Windham participationdelayed the return to prison for thoseinmates who recidivated.'

Because the follow-up information wascollected with regard to a fixed point intime (March 1994) and because inmateshave different release dates, the length ofthe follow-up period varied amonginmates. The follow-up period for thesample varied from 14 to 36, monthsdepending on when an inmate wasreleased. This variation could be aproblem if inmates in Windham programswere systematically/exposed to shorter orlonger follow-up periods than non-Windham inmates, but examination of thedistribution of follow-up periods forgroups of inmates by service deliverycategory showed that the distribution wasnearly identical for all groups. Theaverage follow-up period was 25 monthsfor non-Windham inmates, inmates inWindham academic programs, andinmates in Windham vocational programs,and 24 months for inmates in bothWindham programs. Thus the variationsin length of follow-up should not biascomparisons of groups by type of servicedel ivery.

Findings

Sample Characteristics

Table 9 displays the social, criminal, andeducational characteristics of Windhamand non-Windham inmates. Wecompared groups of inmates who did notparticipate in Windham (the "none"group), inmates who participated only inacademic programs, inmates whoparticipated only in vocational programs,and inmates who participated in bothacademic and vocational programs. Themajor findings in this table pertain to theIQ and EA (educational achievement) test

25

scores of inmates in academic programsand to the effects of time served onparticipation in both academic andvocational Windham programs. Thecomparisons reveal that inmates in theacademic programs had substantiallylower IQ and educational achievementtest scores than inmates in othercategories. That is, Windham academicprograms enroll educationally andintellectually disadvantaged inmates.

We also examined the extent to whichWindham delivers services to inmates whoare required by statute to participate ineducational programs because they haveless than a sixth grade educationalachievement test score and lack a highschool degree or its equivalent. The datashow that 59.8% of the inmates whoparticipated in academic programs fit thecriteria for mandatory ed!.:cation, while40.2% did not. Among inmates who didnot participate in any Windham programs,44.1% met the criteria for mandatoryeducation. There are many reasons whyinmates who are mandated to participatein education programs do not receiveservices: for example, program resourcesvary by institution, or inmates differ inclassification status, motivation,cooperation, and length of sentence.Similarly, there are many reasons whyprison academic programs should reachbeyond the most disadvantaged group ofinmates. From the standpoint of programevaluation standpoint, however, thefindings suggest that the assignmentprocess for participation in prisonacademic programs does not correspondwith official policy goals.

Time Served and Exposure to WindhamPrograms

Length of prison stay was related stronglyto hours of service delivery. Overall, non-Windham inmates served an average of

34

26

4.5 months in prison, Windham academicparticipants served 5.6 months, Windhamvocational participants served 6.7 months,and Windham inmates participating inboth programs served 7.6 months. Thedata also showed that time served wasrelated .to total hours of participation inWindham programs. For example, amongWindharn academic inmates with 300 ormore hours of academic programs, morethan two-thirds served more than 9

months in prison. In contrast, fewer than11% of non-Windham inmates servedmore than 9 months.

The fact that inmates in academicprograms served an average of only 5.6months should not be overlooked in

assessing the performance of theseprograms, because time served relatesdirectly to Windham's opportunity to workwith inmates. Hudson (1977) described acommon characteristic of correctionalprograms, namely that offenders are notexposed to the "treatment" for a longenough time. He referred to such dilutedtreatment efforts as "puny interventions."When the average time-served figures areconsidered in connection with the low IQand low EA test scores discussed above,the predicament faced by prison academicprograms becomes even more difficult toresolve. These data suggest strongly thatthe "window of opportunity" available toWindham programs is very small. In otherwords, the dosage effect of prisoneducation programs in a revolving-doorcorrectional system is very limited. (See

Chapter 2).

Program Participation, Accomplishments,and Outcome Measures

Tables 10 through 14 compare the non-Windham with the Windham inmates withregard to measures of programparticipation and accomplishment. Weexamined the type of program, mandatory

participation, hours of participation, andachievement in the program in relation toprison disciplinary infractions and returnto prison.

Program participation, prison disciplinaryinfractions, and return to prison. Table 10shows that participation in academic andvocational programs, when measured in astraightforward yes/no manner, bore norelation to reincarceration. For allpractical purposes, the percentage ofinmates who were returned to prison didnot vary across groups of Windham andnon-Windham inmates; between 21% and25% of inmates in the various groupswere returned to prison. The data alsoshow that participation in Windhamacademic and vocational programs wasnot related to the number of months toreturn for reincarcerated inmates. Onaverage for the various inmate groups, 14to 16.7 months passed between releaseand reincarceration.

Table 10 also distinguishes, in the non-Windham group, between inmates whowere and were not eligible for academicprograms. (In general, inmates with ahigh school diploma or the GED, itsequivalent, are not eligible for schoolprograms.) This distinction provides aclearer assessment of Windham'sperformance by comparing actual clients(the Windham group) with potentialclients (Windham-eligible with no service),and thus controls for prior educationalexperience to a modest extent. Amongthe no-service group, the noneligibleinmates had a considerably lowerreincarceration rate (19.1%) than theeligible inmates (25.1%).

Windham participation had a strongrelationship to involvement in major andminor disciplinary infractions. Amongnon-Windham inmates, 24.1% wereinvolved in minor infractions during their

36

prison stay, compared with 34.1% inacademic programs, 29.9% in vocationalprograms, and 44.7% in both programs.Corresponding figures for involvement inmajor infractions were 5.7% (non-Windham), 8.4% (Windham academic),7.8% (Windham vocational), and 12.4%(both). These findings are surprisingbecause they are opposite of what wouldbe predicted on the basis of the prisonmanagement literature. Possibly thefigures are biased because inmates inWindham programs served more time inprison and therefore had more opportunityto violate prison rules or a greater risk ofexposure to violations. This issue is

discussed below.

Mandatory education and outcomes.Table 11 examines the outcomes of themandatory service inmates (generally thosewith less than a sixth-grade education) bywhether the inmates actually receivedservice. About half of the mandatoryservice group did not enroll in Windhamprograms. Recidivism rates varied littleamong groups of inmates, ranging from22.2% to 25.3%. Among inmates in themandatory service group, those whoreceived services had lowerreincarceration rates than those who didnot, although the difference was verysmall (25.3% vs. 23.1%). We obtainedsimilar findings with regard to the numberof months to reincarceration for thoseinmates who failed while in thecommunity. Thus, according to thesedata, the policy of mandating participationin educational programs, althoughadmirable, does not reduce recidivism.Table 11 also shows that participation inacademic programs was related to prisonmisbehavior: Windham inmates againdisplayed higher rates of involvement inboth minor and major disciplinaryinfractions.

27

Hours of participation in educationalprograms and outcomes. Table 12

examines the relationship between thenumber of hours in Windham programsand the outcome variables. Because ofthe relatively short time served in theTexas prison system during the periodexamined here, we must take into accountthe quantity of services actually received.Hours of participation are a morediscriminating measure of programexposure that indicates participation moreprecisely than the simple yes/no measureof participation used thus far in theanalyses.

The data show that the number of hours ofparticipation in both academic andvocational programs was relatednegatively to recidivism and positively toprison misbehavior. Inmates with fewerthan 100 hours in academic programs hada reincarceration rate of 25.0%, comparedwith 16.6% for inmates with more than300 hours in academic programs and23.6% for inmates who did not participatein academic programs. Similarly, inmateswith fewer than 100 hours in vocationalprograms had a recidivism rate of 22.8%,inmates with more than 300 hours ofvocational programs had a rate of 18.3%,and inmates who did not participate invocational programs had a rate of 22.4%.The data suggest that participation inacademic and vocational programs hasdiscernible dosage or exposure features:recidivism rates declined only after 200hours of program participation. Ourdecision to categorize service delivery inblocks of 100 hours was somewhatarbitrary, but the data show that academicand vocational programs exhibit a dose-response curve, such that relatively briefperiods of participation had little or noeffect.

28

Finally, the data -show that extendedparticipation in academic and vocationalprograms was associated with increasedviolations of prison rules. With each 100-hour increase in program participation, therate of minor and major rule violationsincreased. Inmates with more than 300hours of Windham participation had aminor infraction rate about two timesgreater and a major infraction rate aboutthree times greater than non-Windhaminmates. In part, this finding reflects theinfluence of time at risk because inmateswho participated niore in prison programsalso spent more time in prison andtherefore had more opportunity to commitinfractions. We examine this issue below.

It is possible that inmates in academic andvocational programs were charged withprogram-related infractions (e.g., tardiness,classroom misbehavior). A recentlycompleted study of TDCJ disciplinarycases clarifies this issue. A study ofdisciplinary charges written betweenNovember 1993 and February 1994showed that "Windham areas" of prisonsaccounted for 8.5% of systemwidedisciplinary charges. However, 80% ofthe charges identified as in the "Windhamarea" indicated "some aspect of studentsfailing to attend class" (TDCJ, 1994).

Educational Achievement and Outcomes.We also sought to examine therelationship of achievement in academicand vocational programs to outcomes. Forinmates in academic programs, wemeasured achievement in terms of changein educational achievement test scores; forvocational programs, in terms of a

certificate of program completion. Inprinciple, these achievement measuresoffer the most accurate indicator ofprogram exposure for evaluation becausethey translate directly into change on thepart of inmates. Unfortunately ourinvestigation was hampered by the fact

that only a small proportion of inmateswere tested more than once foreducational achievement. Nearly allinmates had an educational achievementscore, presumably measured at intake, butonly about 1,200 inmates in academicprograms, or about 20%, were testedagain. Given the large amount of missingdata (roughly 80% of the inmates inacademic programs), we have littleconfidence in the reliability and validity ofthe findings for academic programs.

With this important caution in mind, wefound that academic achievement,measured directly, was not related torecidivism or disciplinary involvement.Inmates who increased by half a gradelevel or more had roughly the samerecidivism rates as inmates who made noprogress in the academic program whenprogress was measured in terms ofstandardized test scores. Among therecidivists, however, inmates whoincreased at least half a grade level stayedout of prison almost 3-1/2 months longerthan inmates who made no academicprogress. In view of the conflictingfindings and the large proportion ofmissing data, the relationship betweenacademic achievement and recidivismshould be targeted for future study.

Prison disciplinary infractions and monthlyparticipation in educational programs.Table 13 investigates the relationshipbetween monthly participation inacademic and vocational programs andprison rule violations. The analysis dealsonly with inmates who participated inWindham academic programs, andexamines whether inmates whoparticipated in Windham programs in agiven month were likely to be written upfor a violation of prison rules in thatmonth. By examining program anddisciplinary involvements monthly, westandardize the time at risk for infractions.

37

Furthermore, because inmates whoparticipate in programs often do sointermittently, the analysis directlyaddresses the issue of programparticipation and rule violations by takinginto account the temporal concordance ofthe two events.

The data show that participation inWindham academic programs was relatedpositively to prison rule violations whenwe took into account the number of hoursof program participation. We found thatamong Windham inmates who were notin academic programs, 9.4% were chargedwith a prison infraction, compared with15% of those who participated. Thefigures for major disciplinary infractionssuggest that violation rates rise wheninmates are involved only slightly withprograms and decrease when inmates areinvolved more heavily. Yet because majorrules violations are relatively infrequent,small fluctuations in rates can be difficultto interpret. A similar pattern existed forvocational programs.

These findings are counterintuitive in thatthey are opposite to those predicted bythe observations of correctional managersand by findings in the relevant literature.As mentioned previously, it may be thatWindham inmates are more likely to bewritten up for program-related ruleviolations; this would be the case ifWindham teachers were relatively strict.This issue could be explored in futureanalyses by studying the type andcircumstances of prison rules violations byinmates engaged in academic andvocational programs.

Does the program work better for someinmates than for others? That is, are someinmates more amenable to treatment, andtherefore do they show greater success,than less amenable inmates who alsoparticipated in a program? We explored

29

this issue by examining the outcomevariables for various categories of inmates,using the social, educational, and criminalhistory information displayed in Table 9.In general, we found that social andcriminal history variables were not relatedto Windham program outcomes. Therewas some suggestion that young first-timeoffenders benefited most from academicprograms, but we found no greatdifferences in outcomes by prisonsegregation class (which is based on acombination of age and priorincarcerati ons). In contrast, theeducational variables showed a substantialinteraction with participation in Windhamacademic programs, as discussed below.

Initial grade levels, participation ineducation, and outcomes. Table 14displays the outcome variables by initialgrade level and hours of participation inWindham academic programs. Inmateswith lower educational levels at intakeand inmates who received fewer than 200hours of academic programs were morelikely to recidivate. The data also indicatea significant interaction effect, such thatthe benefits of academic programmingwere confined largely to inmates with thelowest academic achievement. In otherwords, significant participation inacademic programs (more than 200 hours)apparently reduced recidivism, but thisbenefit was limited mainly to inmates atthe low end of the academic achievementscale.

For example, among inmates with a 1.0 to3.9 initial grade level, 26.6% of the non-Windham inmates were reincarcerated, incontrast to 25.7% of the inmates whoreceived fewer than 200 hours ofacademic programs and 18.1% of theinmates who received more than 200hours. The difference representsapproximately a one-third reduction in therecidivism rate for the intensive service

38

30

group; this is the largest effect ofWindham academic programs in Table 14.Other inmates benefited from substantialparticipation in academic programs, butless so than inmates at the lowest gradelevel. For example, among inmates witha 4.0 to 5.9 initial grade level, therecidivism rate was 27.9% for non-Windham inmates and 20.7% forWindham inmates with more than 200hours of programs, a one-quarter reductionin the recidivism rate. Similarly, amonginmates with a 6.0 to 8.9 initial gradelevel, the recidivism rate was 26.2% fornon-Windharn inmates and 20.5% forWindham inmates with at least 200 hoursof service, a reduction of about one-fifth.Inmates with a 9.0 to 11.9 initial gradelevel also show roughly a one-fifthreduction in recidivism rates when non-Windham inmates were compared withinmates receiving at least 200 hours ofservice (21.4% vs. 16.9%). Overall thesefindings show that fie most substantialreductions in recidivism are found amonginmates at the lowest educational levelwho receive a relatively substantialamount of academic program m ng.Inmates above a 12.0 educational levelalso benefit from participation in academicprograms, but less than those at the lowestlevel.

Conclusions

This research assessed the impact ofWindham programs on disciplinaryinfractions and recidivism rates, but weshould not lose sight of other educationalgoals. Providing ail individuals witheducational services is a fundamentalvalue in the American society. Instillingdiscipline and an education in inmates hasbeen the mainstay of prison programssince the early years of our penal history.

In terms of correctional goals weexamined involvement in prison discipline(both major and minor offenses) alongwith reincarceration; we used the latter asa measure of criminal recidivism. Weexpected that participation in programswould be associated with lower rates ofdisciplinary infractions and lower rates ofrecidivism. Windham participation wasexamined in several ways: simple yes/noanswers, the type of program in whichinmates participated (academic and/orvocational), hours of participation, andeducational achievement. The findingsemphasized the importance of measuringsuch participation in various ways. l-froursof program participation surfaced as themost discriminating measure of programexposure; the binary (yes/no) measure ofprogram participation was notdiscriminating, and use of the achievementvariable was hindered by missing data.

Two major findings emerged from ouranalysis; we believe that they are relevantfor discussions of correctional educationpolicy and for consideration in furtherresearch. First, the data show that inmatesat the lowest levels of educationalachievement benefit most (as indicated bylower recidivism rates) from participationin academic programs. Second, someminimum level of program exposure orinvolvement is necessary if differences inoutcomes are to materialize. When thesetwo factors are combined, the datasuggest that the recidivism rate can bereduced by about one-third if extensiveservices are targeted at inmates at thelowest level of educational achievement.This is not to suggest that other inmatescannot benefit; in fact, evidence suggeststhat recidivism is reduced through the12th grade. Yet, if one is looking for the

greatest return on programminginvestment, the payoff is clearly greatestfor inmates at the low end of theeducational spectrum.

The present research cannot explainexactly why inmates at lower educationallevels seem to benefit most fromeducational service. It may be thatparticipating in educational programsimproves the self-image of theeducationally disadvantaged as well asgiving them new skills.

Findings on hours in programming arecritical because of the relatively shortamount of time served. If programs are tohave an impact, some minimum level ofservices must be delivered. Length oftime served, however, constrains aninmate's opportunity to participate ineducation programs. It might be possibleto work within these constraints byidentifying clients as early as possible andoffering them more intensive services. Onthe other hand, it might be more practicalsimply to consider sentence length andexpected time served in deciding how toallocate scarce program resources.

In this study, participation in vocationalprograms showed smaller effects onreincarceration rates, but importantinformation was missing from the analysis.It is crucial to examine postreleaseemployment availability and to determinewhether that employment corresponds tothe vocational training received in prison.

This study used data from a period inwhich Texas corrections suffered majorinternal and external pressures. Averagetime served plummeted in Texas duringthe late 1980s and 1990s, but hasincreased since 1992 as prison capacityhas begun to expand. As capacityincreases, time served will increase as

31

well, thus widening the window of-oportunity for Windham and otherp -Trams. A more suitable approach toaddressing offenders' educational deficitswould integrate the efforts of communityand institutional resources. An integratedcorrectional case management systemwould assess an offender's educationalneeds in community programs and wouldbegin to deliver academic and vocationalprograms while the, offender was onprobation. If the offender weresubsequently incarcerated, professionalcorrectional educators could continue hisor her schooling in prison, and then couldarrange for continuing educational servicesupon release. Public education in thewider society has failed these offenders, soprofessional correctional educators mustassume the burden. In return, a successfulcorrectional education program may offerthe promise of reducing recidivism andthe associated victimization.

This study further calls into question theoften-repeated dictum that "Nothing worksin corrections," that unfortunate beliefborn as a result of the work of Lipton,Martinson, and Wilks. As in numerousstudies of correctional effectivenessconducted in the past 20 years, thesefindings suggest that correctionalintervention works best when programsare matched with offenders' needs and aredelivered in a concerted, purposefulmanner. This point implies thatcorrectional program administrators mustbe more successful in assigning inmates toprograms so as to maximize the use ofresources and minimize the prospect ofrecidivism.

Note

1. It would have been desirable to use rearrest asa criterion variable in the community follow-upbecause arrest is a more sensitive measure ofcriminal activity than reincarceration. In fact,we obtained some arrest information on the

4 0

32

sample of released inmates from the TexasDepartment of Public Safety. Yet because prisonrecords and arrest records could not be matchedaccurately on the basis of a unique identifier, weused names to match inmates with arrest

records. This procedure proved to be inefficientand yielded only a relative small number ofarrest records. On the basis of our judgmentthat the procedures for identifying arrest recordsgenerated an appreciable amount of error, weused only reincarceration information in thefollow-up. Because this less discriminatingmeasure of criminal activity was used, subtledifferences between Windham and non-Windham clients may have gone undiscovered.

41

References

Allen, Harry E. and Clifford E. Simonsen(1989). Corrections in America. NewYork: Macmillan.

Alston, J. G. (1981). "Preparation for Lifeafter Incarceration." ERIC MicroficheED 202 559.

Anderson, D. B., R. E. Schumacker, and S.L. Anderson (1991). "ReleaseeCharacteristics and Parole Success."Journal of Offender Rehabilitation17:133-45.

Anderson, S. L., D. B. Anderson, and R.

E. Schumacker (1988). CorrectionalEducation: A Way to Stay Out.Springfield: II I inois Council onVocational Education.

Anderson, D. B. (1981). "TheRelationship between CorrectionalEducation and Parole Success."Journal of Offender Counseling,Services and Rehabilitation 5:13-25.

Ayers,- D., S. Duguid, C. Montague, and S.Wolowidnyk (1980). "Effects ofUniversity of Victoria Program: A PostRelease Study." Report to theCorrectional Service in Canada,Ottawa.

Babbie, E. (1992). The Practice of SocialResearch. 6th ed. Belmont, CA:Wadsworth.

Baker, J. E. (1973). "Social Education in aPenitentiary." In A. R. Roberts (ed.),Readings in Prison Education, pp. 240-50. Springfield, IL: Thomas.

33

Beck, Allen, Darrell Gilliard, LawrenceGreenfeld, Caroline W-low, ThomasHester, Louis Jankowski, Tracy Snell,and James Stephan (1993). Survey ofState Prison Inmates, 1991.Washington, DC: U.S. Department ofJustice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

"Big Change in Prisons: PunishNotReform" (1975). U.S. News & WorldReport, August 25, pp. 21-25.

Blackburn, F. S. (1981). "The Relationshipbetween Recidivism and Participationin a .Community College Associate ofArts Degree Program for IncarceratedOffenders." Paper presented at theThirty-sixth Annual Conference of theCorrectional Association, Costa Mesa,CA.

Bodapati, Madhu (1993). The Impact ofthe Texas War on Drugs on theCriminal Justice System. Unpubl i shedDissertation. Sam Houston StateUniversity.

Bullock, Bob (1990). "Prison OverflowsSqueezes Budget." Fiscal Notes 90: 1-5.

Burchard, J. D. and T. N. Lane (1982)."Crime and Delinquency." In A. S.Bellack, M. Herson, and A.E. Kazdin(eds.), International Handbook ofBehavior Modification and Therapy,New York: Plenum.

Burton, Velmer, Greg Dunaway, and ReneKopache (1993). "To Punish orRehabi I itate? A Research NoteAssessing The Purposes of StateCorrectional Departments as Definedby State Legal Codes." Journal ofCrime and Justice. 16: 177-188.

4 2

34

Byrne, James A. and L. Kelly (1989).Restructuring Probation as anIntermediate Sanction. Final Report tothe National Institute of Justice,Research Program on Punishment andControl of Offenders. Washington,DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Byrne, James A., Arthur Lurigio, and JoanPetersilia (1992). Smart Sentencing:The Emergence of IntermediateSentencing. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Christie, Nils (1993). Crime Control asIndustry. London: Rout ledge andKegan Paul.

Clemmer, D. (1958). The Pris nCommunity. New York: Rinehart.(Originally published 1940)

Crouch, Ben (1992). "Is IncarcerationReally Worse? Analyses of OffenderPreferences for Prison OverProbation." Justice Quarterly 10: 67-88.

Crouch, Ben and James W. Marquart(1989). An Appeal to Justice: LitigatedReform of Texas Prisons. Austin:University of Texas Press.

Cullen, Francis and Kevin Gilbert (1982).Reaffirming Rehabilitation. Cincinnati:Anderson.

Cuvelier, Steven, Shihlung Huang, JamesW. Marquart, and Velmer Burton(1992). "Regulating Prison Admissionsby Quota." The Prison Journal. 72:99-119.

Cochran, A. W. (1965). "Is Education ofValue to the Parolee?" Journal ofCorrectional Education 17(2):22-24.

Cogburn, H. E. (1988). Recidivism Study:Positive Terminations from J. F.

Ingram State Technical College, 1976-1986. Deatsville, AL: J. F. IngramState Technical College.

Correctional Education School Authority(1990). Academic and VocationalProgram Cornpleters Released fromPrison during Fiscal Year 1986-1988:Employment, Recidivism and CostAvoidance. Tallahassee: CorrectionalEducation School Authority, Planning,Research and Evaluation.

Davis, S. and B. Chown (1986)."Recidivism among OffendersIncarcerated by the OklahomaDepartment of Corrections WhoReceived Vocational-TechnicalTraining: A Survival Data Analysis ofOffenders Released January 1982through July 1986." ERIC MicroficheED 312 506.

Dilulio, John (1991). No Escape: TheFuture of American Corrections. NewYork: Basic Books.

Downes, E. A., K. R. Monaco, and S. 0.Schreiber (1989). "Evaluating theEffects of Vocational Education onInmates: A Research Model andPreliminary Results." In S. Duguid(ed), The Yearbook of CorrectionalEducation, pp. 249-62. Burnaby, BC:Canada: Simon Fraser University.

Duguid, S. (1981). "Rehabilitationthrough Education: A CanadianModel." Journal of OffenderCounseling, Services, andRehabilitation 6(1/2):53-67.

(1986). "Selective Ethics andIntegrity: Moral Development andPrison Education." Journal ofCorrectional Education 37:61-64.

43

Eisenberg, M. (1991). Five Year OutcomeStudy: Factors Associated withRecidivism. Austin: Texas Departmentof Criminal Justice.

Enocksson, K. (1981). "CorrectionalPrograms: A Review of the Value ofEducation and Training in PenalInstitutions." Journal of OffenderCounseling, Services and Rehabil-itation 6:5-18.

Ethridge, Philip (1990). The NewPenology for Profit: The Emergence ofPrivate of Prisons in Texas.Unpublished doctoral dissertation.Sam Houston State University.

Fabiano, E. A. (1991). "How EducationCan Be Correctional and HowCorrections Can Be Educational."Journal of Correctional Education42(2): 100-106.

Federal Bureau of Prisons (1985). "PREP:Post Release Employment ProjectI nteri m Report." MimeographedReport, Office of Research andEvaluation.

Feeley, Malcolm and Austin Sarat (1980).The Policy Dilemma. Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press.

Fox, T. (1989). "The Necessity of MoralEducation in Prisons." Journal ofCorrectional Education 39:174-81.

Gaes, Gerald and William McGuire(1985). "Prison Violence: TheContribution of Crowding VersusOther Determinants of Prison AssaultRates." Journal of Research in Crimeand Delinquency 22: 41-65.

35

Gearhart, J. W., H. L. Keith, and G.Clemmons (1967). "An Analysis ofthe Vocational Training Program in theWas h i ngton State Adult CorrectionalInstitutions." Research Review 23.State of Washington, Department ofInstitutions.

Gendreau, P., R. Ross, and R. Izzo (1985)."Institutional Misconduct: The Effectsof the UVIC Program at MatsquiPenitentiary." Canadian Journal ofCriminology 27:209-17.

Gendreau, Paul and Robert Ross (1987)."Revivificati on of Rehabi I i tati on:Evidence From the 1980s." JusticeQuarterly 4: 349-407.

Glaser, Daniel (1964). The Effectivenessof a Prison and Parole System.Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.

Gordon, D. A. and J. Arbuthnot (1987)."individual, Group, and FamilyInterventions." In H. C. Quay (ed.),Handbook of Juvenile Delinquency,pp. 290-324. New York: Wiley.

Hagan, F. E. (1993). Research Methods inCriminal Justice and Criminology, 3ded. New York: Macmillan.

Hagerstown Junior College (1982)."Hagerstown Junior College PrisonProgram Operations Manual." ERICMicrofiche ED 215 745.

Hamilton, L. C. (1990). Modern DataAnalysis: A First Course in App!;edStatistics. Pacific Grove, CA:Brooks/Cole.

4 4

36

Hamm, M. S. (1991). "BatterersAnonymous: Toward a CorrectionalEducation to Control RomanticViolence." Journal of CorrectionalEducation 42(2):6473.

Holloway, J. and P. Moke (1986). "PostSecondary Correctional Education: AnEvaluation of Parolee Performance."ERIC Microfiche ED 269 578.

Hudson, J. (1977). Problems ofmeasurement in criminal justice. In L.Rutman (Ed.), evaluation researchmethods: A basic guide. BeverlyHills: Sage.

Jacob, Herbert (1984). The Frustration ofPolicy. Boston: Little, Brown.

Jacobs, James B. (1983). "Macrosociologyand Imprisonment." Pp. 17-32 in NewPerspectives on Prisons andImprisonment, edited by J. Jacobs.Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Jankowski, Louis (1991). Probation andParole. Washington D.C. Bureau ofJustice Statistics, Un i ted StatesDepartment of Justice.

Jengeleski, J. L. (1984). "Reintegrating theEx-Offender: A Critique of Educationand Employment Programs." Journalof Offender Education 35(3) :90-95.

Johnson, D. C., R. W. Shearon, and G. M.Britton (1974). "CorrectionalEducation and Recidivism in a

Woman's Correctional Center." AdultEducation 24:121-29.

Kalton, G. (1983). Introduction to SurveySampling. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Kelly, William and Sheldon Ekland-Olson(1991). "The Response of theCriminal Justice System to PrisonOvercrowding: Recidivism PatternsAmong Four Successive ParoleeCohorts." Law and Society Review25: 601-620.

Knepper, P. (1990). "SelectiveParticipation, Effectiveness, and PrisonCollege Programs." Journal ofOffender Counseling, Services andRehabilitation 14:109-35.

Langenbach, M., M. Y. North, L. Aagaard,and W. Chown (1990). "TelevisedInstruction in Oklahoma Prisons: AStudy of Recidi-vism and DisciplinaryActions." Journal of CorrectionalEducation 41(2):87-94.

Lilly, J. Robert (1987). "A Brief History ofHouse Arrest and ElectronicMonitoring." Northern Kentucky LawReview 13: 342-74.

Linden, R., L. Perry, D. Ayers, and T. A.A. Parlett (1984). "An Evaluation of aPrison Education Program." CanadianJournal of Criminology, pp. 65-73.

Linden, R. and L. Perry (1983). "TheEffectiveness of Prison EducationPrograms." Journal of OffenderCounseling, Services andRehabilitation 6(4):43-57.

Lipton, D., R. Martinson, and J. Wilks(1975). The Effectiveness ofCorrectional Treatment: A Survey ofTreatment Evaluation Studies. NewYork: Praeger.

45

Lockwood, D. (1991). "Prison HigherEducation and Recidivism: A ProgramEvaluation." Yearbook of CorrectionalEducation 1991:187-201.

Logan, Charles and Gerald Gaes (1992)."Meta-Analysis and the Rehabilitationof Punishment." Justice Quarterly 10:245-263.

Markley, H., K. Flynn, and S. Bercaw-Dooen (1983). "Offender Ski I Is

Training and Employment Success: AnEvaluation of Outcomes."Correctional and Social Psychiatry andJournal of Behavior TechnologyTherapy 29:1-11.

Marshall, W. L. , B. A. Turner, and H. E.Barbaree (1989). "An Evaluation ofLife Skills Training for PenitentiaryInmates." Journal of OffenderCounseling, Services andRehabilitation 14(2):41-59.

Martinson, R. (1974 [1976]). "WhatWorks? Questions and Answers aboutPrison Reform." The Public Interest35:22-54. Reprinted in R. Martinson,T. Palmer, and S. Adams (eds.),Rehabilitation, Recidivism, andResearch, pp. 7-39. Hackensack, NJ:Nalional Council on Crime andDel inquency.

Merton, R. (1938). "Social Structure andAnomie." American SociologicalReview 3:672-82.

Michalek, W. (1988). "CorrectionalEducation: Skill Acquisition andMoral Enterprise." Journal ofCorrectional Education 39(1):6-10.

37

Minahan, J. (1990). "Mapping the World:Some Thoughts on Teaching theHumanities in Prison." Journal ofCorrectional Education 41(1):14-19.

Morris, Norval and Michael Tonry (1990).Between Prison and Probation. NewYork: Oxford University Press.

New York State, Department ofCorrectional Services (1989). Follow-Up Study of a Sample of OffendersWho Earned High School EquivalencyDiplomas While Incarcerated. Albany:Department of Correctionzd Services.

(1991). Analysis of Return Rates ofthe Inmate College ProgramParticipants. Albany: Department ofCorrectional Services.

(1992). Overview of DepartmentFollow-Up Research on Return Ratesof Participants in Major Programs-1992. Albany: Department ofCorrectional Services.

O'Neil, M. (1990). "Correctional HigherEducation: Reduced Recidivism."Journal of Correctional Education41(1):28-31.

Ott, R. L. (1993). An Introduction toStatistical Methods and Data Analysis.4th ed. Belmont, CA: Duxbury Press.

Palmer, T. (1976). "Martinson revisited."In R. Martinson, T. Palmer, and S.Adams (eds.), Rehabilitation,Recidivism, and Research, pp. 41-62.Hackensack, NJ: National Council onCrime and Delinquency.

38

Pritchard, D. A. (1979). "Stable Predictorsof Recidivism." Criminology 17:15-21.

Rezmovic, E. (1979). Methodologicalconsiderations in evaluatingcorrectional effectiveness: Issues andchronic problems. In L. Sechrest, S.White, & E. Brown (Eds.), The

rehabilitation of criminal offenders:Problems and prospects (pp. ).

Washington, DC: National Academyof Sciences Press.

Rice, E., J. R. Poe, Jr., J. R. B. Hawes, Jr.,and J. Nerden (1980). "Assessment ofQuality Vocational Education in StatePrisons. Executive Summary. Final

Report." ERIC Microfiche ED 203032.

Robison, Clay (1992). "Prison CrowdingOutpaces Construction, PushingSystem to Brink." Houston Chronicle,October 24.

Robison, Clay (1993). "Jails Full of FelonsDespite New Prisons." HoustonChronicle, November 25.

Rothman. David (1971). Discovery of TheAsylum:. Boston: Little, Brown.

Rogers, S. (1980). An Examination ofAdult Training Centers in OntarioCommunity Follow-Up. Province ofOntario: Ministry of CorrectionalServices.

Ross, R. R. and E. Fabiano (1985). Time

to Think: A Cognitive Model ofDelinquency Prevention and OffenderRehabilitation. Johnson City, TN:Institute of Social Sciences and Arts.

Ross, R. R., E. Fabiano, and R. Ross.

(1988). " (Re)habi I itation throughEducation: A Cognitive Model forCorrections." Journal of CorrectionalEducation 39(2):44-47.

Roundtree, G. A., D. W. Edwards, and S.H. Dawson (1982). "The Effects ofEducation on Self-Esteem of MalePrisob Inmates." Journal ofCorrectional Education 32(4):12-18.

Saaty, Thomas (1961). Elements ofQueuing Theory. New York:McGraw-Hill.

Saden, S. J. (1962). "CorrectionalResearch at Jackson Prison." Journalof Correctional Education 15

(October):22-26.

Saylor, W. G. and G. G. Gaes (1987)."PREPPost Release EmploymentProject: The Effects of Work SkillsAcquisition in Prison on Post ReleaseEmployment." Paper Presented at theAnnual Meeting of the AmericanSociety of Criminology, Montreal.

(1992). PREP Study Links UN1CORWork Experience with Successful Post-Release Outcome. Washington, DC:U.S. Department of Justice.

Schnur, A. (1948). "The EducationalTreatment of Prisoners andRecidivism." American Journal ofSociology 54:142-47.

Schumacker, R. E., D. B. Anderson, and S.L. Anderson (1990). "Vocational andAcademic Indicators of ParoleSuccess." Journal of CorrectionalEducation 41(1):8-13.

Sharp, J. (1992). Schools behind Bars:Windham School System and OtherPrison Education Programs. Austin:Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts.

State of Maryland, Department of PublicSafety and Correctional Services(1989). Implementation of System toMeasure Recidivism and StatisticalInformation on Recidivism. Baltimore.

State of Texas, Criminal Justice PolicyCouncil (1992). An Evaluation of theReading to Reduce RecidivismProgram: Final Report to Texas

Department of Commerce. Austin.

Texas Board of Criminal Justice, AllocationFormula Overview May 16, 1991.

Texas Department of Criminal JusticeInstitutional Division, 1989. AnnualOverview.

Texas Department of Criminal Justice(1994). Report on disciplinary casesin Windham. Huntsville:Mimeographed report, TexasDepartment of Criminal Justice,mimeo.

Texas Performance Review (1992).Management and Performance Reviewof the Texas Prison Education System.

Thorpe, T., D. MacDonald, and G. Bala(1984). "Follow-up of Offenders WhoEarn College Degrees WhileIncarcerated in New York State."Journal of Correctional Education35(3):86-88.

Thurman, Gina, Steven J. Cuvelier, andJames W. Marquart (1990). When Jailand Prison Systems Collide.Unpublished manuscript, SamHouston State University.

39

Tope, E. R. and R. J. Warthan (1986)."Correctional Education: Igniting theSpark of Moral Maturation." Journalof Correctional Education 37(2):75-78.

Walsh, A. (1985). "An Evaluation of theEffects of Adult Basic Education onRearrest Rates among Probationers."Journal of Offender Counseling,Services and Rehabilitation 9(4):69-76.

Windham School System, TexasDepartment of Criminal Justice,Institutional Division (No date).Annual Performance Report: 1980-90School Year. Huntsville, TX: TexasDepartment of Criminal Justice.

Wolf, J. G. and D. Sylves (1981). "TheImpact of Higher EducationOpportunity Programs. Post PrisonExperience of Disadvantaged Students:A Preliminary Follow-Up of HEOP Ex-Offenders. Final Report." ERICMicrofiche ED 226 073.

Zink, T. M. (1970). "A Study of the Effectof Prison Education on SocietalAdjustment." Journal of CorrectionalEducation 22(2):18-20.

4 8

40

Appendix. Additional Publications NotDiscussed in Chapter One

Many other studies of correctionaleducation have been published in additionto those discussed in this review. Weselected our studies on the basis ofsubstantive topic, focusing on adultacademic and vocational correctionaleducation, and disregarded research onjuveniles and on correctional interventionssuch as drug treatment programs. We alsochose our studies on the basis ofmethodological consider-ations. Ingeneral we did not discuss studies thatwere not the result of empirical research,and we were likely to discount researchthat did not use control groups.

We reviewed the following list ofpublications but did not discuss them forone or more of the reasons cited above:

Anderson, D. B. (1981). "An Assessmentof Vocational Programs in Illinois'Juvenile and Adult CorrectionalFacilities." Journal of CortectionalEducation 32(4):16-19.

Bailey, W. C. (1966). "CorrectionalOutcome: An Evaluation of 100Reports." Journal of Criminal Law,Criminology and Police Science57(2): 153-60.

Bennett, B. (1991). "Diversity in ServingPrison Populations." ERIC MicroficheED 333 909.

Caffrey, T. J. (1982). "Fostering Success ofNon-Traditional Students." ERIC

Microfiche ED 221 495.

Cheatwood, D. (1988). "The Impact ofPrison Environment on iheIncarcerated Learner." Journal ofCorrectional Education 39(4):184-86.

Clendenen, R. J., J. R. Ellingston, and R.

J. Severson (1979). "Project Newgate:The First Five Years." Crime andDelinquency 25:55-64.

Conrad, E., R. Bell, and T. Laffey (1978)."Correctional Education: A Summaryof the National Evaluation Project."Quarterly Journal of Corrections2(2):14-20.

Conrad, J. P. (1981). "A Lost Ideal, ANew Hope: The Way toward EffectiveCorrectional Treatment." Journal ofCriminal Law and Criminology72:1699-734.

Englander, F. (1983). "Helping Ex-Offenders Enter the Labor Market."Monthly Labor Review 106(7):25-30.

Gendreau, P. and B. Ross (1979)."Effective Correctional Treatment:Bibliotherapy for Cynics." Crime andDelinquency 25:463-89.

(1983-1984). "CorrectionalTreatment: Some Recommendationsfor Effective Intervention." Juvenileand Family Court Journal 34(4):31-39.

Germsheid, R. D. (1985). "PrisonEducation: To What End?" C.V.A.21(3):26-29.

Glaser, D. (1966). "The Effectiveness ofCorrectional Education." AmericanJournal of Corrections 28(2):4-9.

41i

Haber, G. M. (1983). "The Realization ofPotential by Lorton, B. C. Inmates withUDC College Education Compared toThose without UDC Education."Journal of Offender Counseling,Services and Rehabilitation 7(314):37-55.

Halasz, I. M. (1982). "EvaluatingVocational Education Programs inCorrectional Institutions." Journal ofCorrectional Education 33(4):7-10.

!mei, S. (1990). "Vocational Education inCorrections: Trends and Issues Alerts."ERIC Microfiche ED 317 847.

Lawyer, H. L. and T. D. Dertinger (1993)."Back to School or Back to Jail?

Fighting Illiteracy to ReduceRecidivism." Criminal Justice 7(4):16-21.

Lombardi, J. (1984). "The Impact ofCorrectional Education on Length ofIncarceration: Non-Support for NewParoling Policy Motivation." Journalof Correctional Education 35 (2) : 54-

57.

McCollum, S. G. (1977). "What Works!A Look at Effective CorrectionalEducation and Training Experiences."Federal Probation 41(2):32-35.

Miller, M. R. (1989). "Apprenticeship/Training in Correctional Institutions."ERIC Microfiche ED 315 643.

Myers, S. L., Jr. (1980). "WorkExperience, Criminal History, andPost-Prison Perfor-mance." ERICMicrofiche ED 197 262.

50

41

Neil, T. C. and J. W. Harvey (1976)."School Attendance and Discipline."Journal of Correctional Education28(1):10-11.

Pittman, V. V. and E. M. Whipple (1982)."The Inmate as a College Student."Lifelong Learning (March):4-5.

Robison, J. and G. Smith (1971). "TheEffectiveness of CorrectionalPrograms." Crime and Delinquency17(1):67-80.

Waldo, G. P. and T. G. Chiricos (1977)."Work Release and Recidivism: AnEmpirical Evaluation of a SocialPolicy." Evaluation Quarterly 1:87-108.

Williams, D. N. (1989). "CorrectionalEducation and the CommunityCollege." ERIC Microfiche ED 321835.

Wolford, B. I. and R. W. Snarr (1987)."What is the Goal of CorrectionalEducation?" Journal of CorrectionalEducation 38(2):60-64.

42

Table 1. Selection and Evaluation Criteria for Studies Reviewed fl-zre

Selection

Empirical data. Does the study report empirical data, or is it merely a "thought" piece?Generally, we omitted thought pieces.

Evaluation

Control group. Did the studies include control groups? Some studies reported only on anexperimental group, that is, participants in an educational programwithout including acomparison group of inmates who did not participate. We included a few such studies in ourreview because they are cited often in the literature, but generally we excluded them (see Babble1992 for a discussion of control groups).

Matching vs. random assignment of subjects. If control groups were used, did the researchersassign subjects randomly to control and experimental groups, did they match subjects, or did theysimply compare participants in a program with nonparticipants? Statisticians consider randomassignment best, matching second best, and simple comparisons of participants withnonparticipants least desirable (Hagan 1993; Ka !ton 1983), but our review of the literature showsthat research constraints rarely allow for random assignment.

OR

Statistical controls. If the researchers did not assign subjects randomly to control andexperimental groups, did they control statistically for background differences? As a rule, morefaith can be placed in research that controls for some of the generally accepted correlates ofsuccessful postrelease adjustment: for example, prior convictions, age at first conviction, or opiateuse (Pritchard 1979).

Tests of statistical significance. Are differences between experimental and control groups due tochance or are they statistically significant? Statisticians warn against the use of differencesbetween samples unless it can be shown that they are not due to chance alone (Ott 1993).

43

Table 2. Summary of Findings of Studies of Precollege Education

Consequences Author YearRelationship

FoundMethodology

Rating

Postrelease Anderson 1981 3

Recidivism Anderson, Anderson,and Schumacker 1988 + 2

Cochran 1965 + 3

Cogburn 1988 + 1

Correctional EducationSchool Authority 1990 + 2

Johnson et al. 1974 = 3

N1YS, DOCS 1989, 1992 + 3

Saden 1962 + 2

Schnur 1948 + 2

Schumacker, Anderson,and Anderson 1990 + 2

Rogers 1980 ?

Roundtree, Edwards,and Dawson 1982 = 3

Zink 1970 + 3

Postrelease Anderson 1981 = 3

Employment Anderson, Anderson,and Schumacker 1988 + 2

Correctional EducationSchool Authority 1990 + 2

Schumacker, Anderson,and Anderson 1990 + 2

Postrelease Anderson 1981 + 3

Participationin Education

State of Texas 1992 + 2

Explanation of Symbols:+ Relationship between correctional program and consequence is in the desirable direction.

Relationship between correctional program and consequence is in the undesirable direction.No relationship between correctional program and consequence.

0 Methodologically weakest studies: no control group, statistical controls, or significance tests.1 Research includes one of the above.2 Research includes two of the above.3 Methodologically strongest studies: research included all three of the above.? Adequacy of research methodology cannot be ascertained.

44

Table 3. Summary of Findings of Studies of College Education

Consequences Author YearRelationship

FoundMethodology

Rating

Postrelease Ayers et al. 1980 + ?

Recidivism Blackburn 1981 + 3

Duguid 1981 + ?

Hagerstown JuniorCollege 1982 + 1

Holloway and Moke 1986 + 2

Knepper 1990 3

Langenbach et al. 1990 + 3

Linden et al. 1984 = 3

Lockwood 1991 = 2

NYS, DOCS 1991 + 2

NYS, DOCS 1992 + 3

O'Neil 1990 + 3

Thorpe et al. 1984 + 2

Wolf and Sylves 1981 = 0

Postrelease Duguid 1981 + ?

Employment Holloway and Moke 1986 + 2

Wolf and Sylves 1981 + 0

Disciplinary Gendreau et al. 1985 2

Problems Langenbach et al. 1990 = 3

Linden et al. 1984 + 3

Postrelease Duguid 1981 + ?

Participationin Education

Wolf and Sylves 1981 + 0

Explanation of Symbols:+ Relationship between correctional program and consequence is in the desirable direction.

Relationship between correctional program and consequence is in the undesirable direction.No relationship between correctional program and consequence.Methodologically weakest studies: no control group, statistical controls, or significance tests.Research includes one of the above.

2 Research includes two of the above.3 Methodologically strongest studies: research included all three of the above.

Adequacy of research methodology cannot be ascertained.

1

45

Table 4. Summary of Findings of Studies on Vocational Education

Consequences Author YearRelationship

FoundMethodology

Rating

Postrelease Alston 1981 + 1

Recidivism Anderson 1981 + 3

Anderson, Anderson,and Schumacker 1988 + 2

Anderson, Schumacker,and Anderson 1991 + 3

Cochran 1965 + 3

Cogburn 1988 + 1

Correctional EducationSchool Authority 1990 + 2

Davis and Chown 1986 1

Downes et al. 1989 = 3

Gearhart et al. 1967 + ?

Markley et al. 1983 = 3

Saylor and Gaes 1992 + 3

Schumacker, Anderson,and Anderson 1990 + 2

Postrelease Anderson 1981 + 3

Employment Anderson, Anderson,and Schumacker 1988 + 2

Correctional EducationSchool Authority 1990 + 2

Downes et al. 1989 3

Markley et al. 1983 - 3

Saylor and Gaes 1992 + 3

Schumacker, Anderson,and Anderson 1990 + 2

Disciplinary Alston 1981 + 1

Problems Saylor and Gaes 1992 + 3

Linden et al. 1984 + 3

Explanation of Symbols:+ Relationship between correctional program and consequence is in the desirable direction.

Relationship between correctional program and consequence is in the undesirable direction.= No relationship between correctional program and consequence.0 Methodologically weakest studies: no control group, statistical controls, or significance tests.1 Research includes one of the above.2 Research includes two of the above.3 Methodologically strongest studies: research included all three of the above.? Adequacy of research methodology cannot be ascertained.

54

46

Table 5. Total Prisoner Population, New Admissions, and Turnover Ratio, 1980-1990

YearTotal Prisoner

PopulationNew

AdmissionsTurnover

Ratio

1980 28,543 14,176 .50

1981 30,315 15,702 .52

1982 34,393 18,837 .55

1983 36,769 22,870 .62

1984 35,772 23,058 .64

1985 37,320 25,365 .68

1986 38,246 30,471 .80

1987 39,652 35,007 .88

1988 39,664 33,816 .85

1989 41,626 33,303 .80

1990 49,157 46,290 .94

47

Table 6. Texas Prison Segregative Class Categories

Level Group Age

I First Offender 17-21

IA First Offender 22-25IB First Offender Over 25

ll Recidivist 17-21

IIA Recidivist 22-25IIB Recidivist Over 25IIC Habituals

III Malcontents, HighSecurity Risks

56

48

0

Table 7. Time Served in Prison versus Time Needed to Advance One Grade Level.,

Mean Number of Mean Number ofMean Number ofMonths Needed to

Segregative Months Months Needed to Achieve Vocational

Class Served in Prison Advance 1 Grade Level Certification

I 12.1 14.5 6.3

IA 11.8 10.3 6.1

IB 12.1 11.3 6.3

II 13.0 27.5 6.2

IIA 11.3 12.8 6.6

IIB 12.2 15.5 6.2

IIC 14.0 13.9 6.5

Overall Mean 12.3 13.0 6.3

5''J

49

Table 8. Waiting Time in Days and Months by Segregative Class

Segregative Waiting Time Waiting TimeClass in Days in Months

I 179.9 5.9IA 163.6 5.3IB 204.2 6.7Il 145.9 4.8

IIA 181.2 5.9IIB 152.9 5.0IIC 166.3 5.4

Overall Mean 176.9 5.8

58

50

Table 9. Social, criminal, and educational characteristicsof Windham and Non-Windham inmates

Conviction offense

None(n = 7793)

Percent

Academic(n = 5130)

Percent

Vocational(n = 208)

Percent

Both(n = 1280)

Percent

Homidde/kidnap 1 7 1.6 4.1 2.3

Sex offense 2.0 2.1 0.0 2.5

Robber/assault 9.5 10.0 13 3 14 8

Burglary/larceny 39.6 38 2 44.1 42.2

Forgery/fraud 6.8 5 0 5.1 3.0

Drugs 32 9 35.8 28 2 30 0

Traffic 6.1 5.3 4.1 3.2

Other 1 5 2 0 1.0 2.1

Violent offenseYes 25.5 27 4 24.4 12 8

No 74.5 72.6 75.6 67.2

Prior adult incarcerationNone 63.8 65.2 59 2 64.3

One or two 14.1 33.5 38.3 34.8

Three or more 2.1 1.4 1.5 0.8

Age (in years)16-21 17.1 22.3 28.8 27 4

22.27 25 1 27 1 24.5 28.2

28.35 32 ' 31.1 29.8 28.2

36 . .. ., 19 6 16.8 16.2

Mean 30 5 29.1 27.7 27.6

Std. Dev. 9.1 9.0 7.5 7.9

GenderMale 85.7 79 8 87.5 87.3

Female 14 3 20 2 12.5 12.7

Race

Black 45.3 44.9 30.8 18.8

White 19.6 29.6 23.1 27.7

Hispanic 34.9 25.2 46.2 33.3

Other 0 3 0 3 0 0 0.2

Marital statusMarried 29 9 37 0 35.1 34.4

Single 70 1 68.0 64.9 65.6

IQ test score60 to 79 19.0 29.0 8 6 19.2

80 to 100 SI 7 53.7 57.4 56 2

101 to 135 29.2 17.3 14 0 24.6

Mean 86.3 78 8 90.3 85.9

Std. Dtv. 26.6 28.9 24.4 24.3

Iducational achievement(grade level)

less than 6.0 31 8 58.8 17 1 41.8

6.0 to 7.4 15.4 16.1 16.5 17 9

7.5 and higher 52.8 24.9 66.5 40.3

Mean 4 6 4.6 6 4 5 8

Std. Dev. 4 5 3 3 3 3 3.6

Mandatory educationstatus 44.1 59.8 29.3 41.8

Yes 55 9 40 2 70 7 58.2

No

59BEST COPY AVAILABLE

51

Table 10. Prison and community outcomes by Windham eligibilityand type of education program participation

OUTCOMEPrison Community

Minor Major Return to Months todisciplinaries disciplinaries prison return

Windham participation Percent Percent Percent Percent

None(n = 8001)

24.1 5.7 23.7

Windham eligible 22.5

Windham el igible 23.8

5.8 25.1

5.7 19.1

15.7 - Mean6.7 - S.D.

15.5 - Mean6.6 - S.D.

16.7 - Mean6.5 - S.D.

Academic 34.1 8.4 23.0 16.5 - Mean(n = 5051) 6.5 - Mean

Vocational 29.9 7.8 20.9 14.2 - Mean(n = 422) 6.1 - S.D.

Both 44.7 12.4 21.6 15.6 - Mean(n = 1359) 6.1 - S.D.

60

52

Table 11. Prison and community outcomes by mandatory participationin Windham programs and actual service delivery

Note: The "months to return" column applies only to those inmates

who were reincarcerated.

OUTCOME

Prison Community

Minor Major Return to Months todisciplinaries disciplinaries prison return

Windham participation Percent Percent Percent Percent

Not mandatory, 24.8 5.7 22.3 16.4 - Meanno service (n 4503) 6.9 - S.D.

Not mandatory, 37.9 9.7 22.2 16.4 Mean

service (n 2807) 6.5 - S.D.

Mandatory, 22.2 6.0 25.3 15.3 - Mean

no service (n 3498) 6.5 - S.D.

Mandatory, 33.3 8.7 23.1 16.6 - Mean

service (n = 3603) 6.6 - S.D.

61

53

Table 12. Prison and community outcomes by number of hoursin Windham programs

Note: The "months to return" column applies only to those inmates

who were reincarcerated

Minordisciplinaries

OUTCOMEPrison

Major Return todisciplinaries prison

Community

Months toreturn

Participation inacademic programs

Percent Percent Percent Percent

15.7 - MeanNone 22.8 5.7 23.6 6.6 - S.D.

16.5 - Mean100 hours or fewer 31.2 7.3 25.0 6.6 - S.D.

16.0 - Mean101 to 200 hours 39.8 8.5 20.7 6.5 - S.D.

16.7 - Mean201 to 300 hours 42.7 12.5 21.8 6.4 - S.D.

15.2 - Mean301 hours or more 48.5 18.2 16.6 5.5 - S.D.

Participation invocational programs

16.1 - MeanNone 27.1 6.7 22.4 6.2 - S.D.

15.2 - Mean100 hours or fewer 35.8 9.8 22.8 6.3 - S.D.

15.8 - Mean101 to 200 hours 45.2 12.4 22.6 6.6 - S.D.

15.0 - Mean201 to 300 hours 47.6 10.7 18.2 5.5 - S.D.

14.9 - Mean301 hours or more 48.8 14.8 18.3 5.5 - S.D.

6 2

54

Table 13. Disciplinary involvement by monthly participationin Windham programs

Note: The data pertain only to inmates who participated in Windhamprograms and describe the inmates' month-by-month program and

disciplinary involvements.

DISCIPLINARY INVOLVEMENT

Monthly participationin academic programs

Minor Major

None 9.4 2.3

1 to 39 hours 15.3 3.4

40 or more hours 15.5 1.5

Monthly Participationin vocational program

No 10.5 2.2

Yes 18.2 3.1

55

Table 14. Prison and community outcomes by initial grade leveland hours of participation in academic programs

OUTCOMEPrison Community

Initial grade level

1.0 to 3.9

No participation

Minordisciplinaries

Percent

Majordisciplinaries

Percent

Return toprison

Percent

Months toreturn

Percent

200 hours or fewer 21.4 7.0 26.6 14.2 - MeanOver 200 hours 30.0 7.6 25.7 16.8 - Mean

41.0 11.5 18.1 17.0 - Mean4.0 to 5.9

No participation200 hours or fewer 29.2 7.7 27.9 15.9 - MeanOver 200 hours 33.5 8.5 22.8 16.5 - Mean

46.3 17.8 20.7 16.6 - Mean6.0 to 8.9

No participation200 hours or fewer 25.5 6.6 26.2 16.0 - MeanOver 200 hours 35.1 7.6 24.7 16.1 - Mean

52.5 19.3 20.5 15.5 - Mean9.0 to 11.9

No participation200 hours or fewer 23.0 5.7 21.4 17.5 - MeanOver 200 hours 38.9 7.3 19.8 17.7 - Mean

46.5 12.7 16.9 15.3 - Mean12.0 and higher

No participation200 hours or fewer 26.6 5.4 15.3 14.4 - MeanOver 2:0 hours 39.5 5.7 13.2 14.1 - Mean

40.6 9.4 12.5 14.0 - Mean

64

Sam Houston Press 1994

Sam Houston State University

A Member of The Texas State University System Huntsville, Teras

Cover Primed on

Reqvied Palm'

65