DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 360 901 HE 026 636

AUTHOR Blair, Robert, Ed.; Jones, Wes, Ed.TITLE Corrections & Higher Education Monograph. [A

Compilation of Papers Presented at the NationalConference on Corrections & Higher Education(Columbus, Ohio, November 21-23, 1991)].

INSTITUTION Eastern Kentucky Univ., Richmond. Training ResourceCenter.

PUB DATE 93

NOTE 67p.; Produced cooperatively with the Academy ofCriminal Justice Sciences.

AVAILABLE FROM Training Resource Center, College of Law Enforcement,Eastern Kentucky University, 449 Stratton Building,Richmond, KY 40475-3131 ($22).

PUB TYPE Reports General (140) Collected WorksConference Proceedings (021)

EDRS PRICE MFOI/PC03 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS Adult Education; *Correctional Education;

Correctional Institutions; *CorrectionalRehabilitation; *Educational Economics; EducationalNeeds; Higher Education; Institutional Personnel;Prisoners; *Role of Education; *Special NeedsStudents; Staff Development; Student Financial Aid;Teacher Student Relationship

ABSTRACTThis monograph contains nine papers that examine

appropriate education for prison inmates and training and educationfor correctional staff. Discussions include an argument that socialclass stratification plays a role in prison education; theobservation that higher education's role is vital for prisonerreintegration into society; and a plea to eliminete the threats toprison education, such as the elimination of Pell Grants forprisoners and lack of support among correctional employees. Alsoprovided is an overview of the impetus that historical and legalfactors have played in upgrading educational requirements forcorrection personnel. The following papers are included: "Education:Correction's Vital Link to the Real World" (J. Michael Quinlan);"Mass Education and the Legitimation of Prison Higher Education"(Raymond Jones); "The Role of Post-Secondary Education andCorrection" (Helen Corrothers); "The Correctional Crisis and theEconomics of Post-Secondary Correctional Education" (Jon M. Taylor);"The Bacone College/Oklahoma Department of Corrections On-SitePost-Secondary Educational Program" (Dave Norfolk); "The CorrectionalPracticum: Invitational Education in Participation, Self-Awarenessand Professionalism" (F. Lamarr Crowe and John Zappala); "PublicSafety and Justice Careers: A Virginia University's Program forProfessionalism" (Paul Keve); "A Study of the Role of theStudent-Teacher Relationship within Correctional Education" (DanielW. Lawrence); and "Future Opportunities of Symbiosis in RelatingHigher Education to Correctional In-Service Training" (P. ChristopherMenton). Most papers include references. (GLR)

"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

Training Resource

Center, EasternKentucky University

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)."

U S DEPARTMENT )F EDUCATIONOhoce o Educahonal Reseawn ana Irno,oernenrEDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION

CENTER .ERICI

hs aocurnent has peen reorooucers as'ece.ed tr.:), toe perSon or ohjanqa bonorcpnarmg tt

C SAnor Cnange3 nave been ,nacie to ,rna,one'eoroOuction chards

Po.hIs Or .hew 0 crownons Slated .n th.sootoeo, do no! neCesSeh.n ,emeSen,'E P. 005.10n 001.cv

er-Ati -11.7.7., :171 r.4 1

44

\

IL

1 1 0

,_

111

4

I

_ a

0%.

-I

This Publication was complied based on submissions from

presentations at the National Conference on Corrections &

Higher Education. The Conference was held in Columbus,

Ohio on November 21-23, 1991.

The Conference sponsors included:

Academy of Criminal Justice SciencesEastern Kentucky University

Correctional Education AssociationInternational Association of Correctional Training Personnel

Justice Volunteer Center-Kent State UniversityNational juvenile Detention Associatien

Ohio Community Corrections OrganizationOhio Council of Criminal Justice Educators

Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & CorrectionsOhio Penal Education Consortium

Ohio Department of Youth ServicesOhio University Office Adult Learning Services

Training Resource Center

1.

Wilmington College

A

Swa 611PO 1.10.1WIMPI

ih.

Education: Correction's Vital Link to the Real Worldby J. Ivlichael Quinlan 2

Mass Education & the Legitimation of Prison Higher Educationby Raymond Jones 7

The Role of Post-Smondary Education & Correctionby Helen Corrothers 12

The Correctional Crisis & the Economics of Post-Secondanj Correctional Educationby Jon M. Taylor 18

The Bacone CollegelOklahoma Department of CorrectionsOn-Site Post-Secondary Educational Programby Dave Norfolk 24

The Correctional Practicum: Invitational Education inParticipation, Self-Awareness & Professionalismby F. Lamarr Crowe & John Zappaia 26

Public Safety & Justice Careers: A Virginia University's Programfor Professionalism

by Paul Keve 35

A Study of the Role of the Student-Teacher Relationship withinCorrectional Education

by Daniel W. Lawrence 45

Future Opportunities of Symbiosis in Relating HigherEducation to Correctional In-Service Training

by P. Christopher Menton 54

3 (-71\101ATLEDGEMENT5',flunkyou to ea the Nationat Conference =Correctional* Higher Education

Pluttlpants, Speakers andCo ttee Members.

Robert Blain EditorCollege oi WoosterWes Tones, Editor

Ohio Departroent of Rehabilltation and Corrections

I Wolford, Diredor/PubliaberEutent Ken Ilniversitx

Training Roourcv Center

Oonnie , Conference 6ordirtator/ijorictop ruttlither5 , &gent Ken University

Traioing nee Center

.1141*, inutO:theOhio; .ROut4litationirCorrectio2s for all.and condxmed tutereet in the deveLopment er Educafton.. . .

BEST COPY AVAILABLE4

FOREWORD

Robert R. Blair and Wes Jones, Editors

Two principal concerns govern the deliberations of academicians and correctional practitioners

when they gather the role of higher education in corrections. One involves appropriate education

for inmates; the other concerns training and education for correctional staff. The nine papers

included in this monograph address issues relevant to the educational needs of both groups. The

first four concern inmate education.

Raymond L Jones and J. Michael Quinlan provide .a context for discussing specific programs of

higher education for inmates. Jones argues that processes in institutions of higher education that

reproduce class strati. ication in our society have their counterparts in prison programs where

"education appropriat e for prisoners" is designed. Ttwse programsmay not alter the social status

of participants, but offer opportunities for personal growth. Quinlan views the role of higher

education in corrections as vital for reintegrating inmates into society. However, current building

programs tend to compromise prison programming; similarly, prison programming must be

viewed within the context of community and in the establishment of Community Relations

Boards. His charge to members of the profession is to learn more about corrections and to

become involved in research that leads to meaningful change.

Helen G. Corrothers addresses the need for correctional educators and administrators to alert the

public to the potential benefits incurred through the secondary education of institutionalized

offenders. Ms. Corrothers feels that the education is necessary in order to fully reintegrate

individuals in custody into society, development of values, reflecting those held by society-thus

ensuring public safety. Among the threats to correctional education Ms. Corrothers mentions are,

the eradication of Pell Grants for inmates, and the lack of support among correctional employees

and officials. She feels that it is the challenge of the criminal justice system to prepare offenders

for a "responsible and crime-free life upon release."

The papers of Jon M. Taylor and Dave Norfolk can be viewed within the context of the general

arguments set forth by Jones and Quinlan. Taylor shares a participant's perspective of inmate

education, and attests to its efficacy as both an avenue for personal growth and as a predictor for

reducing recidivism. Norfolk outlines the essential components of a two-year general studies

program, designed by Bacone College and the Oklahoma Department of Correction; for a

correctional center. The program has enjoyed modest success.

A second set of papers address the general theme of higher education for correctional staff.

Darrell L. Ross provides an excellent overview of the impetus that historical and legal factors

have played in upgrading educational requirements for correction personnel. The analysis

includes studies that document the value of an educated staff for supervising offenders.

Two models that attempt to implement the objectives outlined by Ross are suggested by Paul W.

Keve and F. Lamarr Crowe and John Zappala. Keve outlines the effort of one university to

implement a program designed to provide quality training and education for criminal justice

agencies. The individuals responsible for the development of the program are cited, as are the

particulars on funding the key stages in the establishment of a diverse program. Crowe and

Zappala discuss the practicum established at a community college to acquaint students with the

skills of the program, including the strengths of existing programs they emulate, the strategies

used to develop support for the program the acquisition of competent staff, the organization of

the classroom setting, and the acquirement of reactions from students involved in the program.

Finally, P. Christopher Menton provides an overview of how one trainer attempts to incorporate

basic principles from higher education into on-the-job training for correctional staff.

Notional Conforms on Corrections de Nigher Education

EDUCATION: CORRECTION'S VITAL LINK TOTHE REAL WORLD

Based on Remarks Presented at theNational Conferenceon Correctionsand Higher EducationNovember 21, 1991

This topic - linkage betweeneducation and corrections - joinstwo of the most vexing subjectsfacing our society today. As anation, we are struggling with thetwin challenges of moving ourcitizenry into the informationagewhile at the same time copingwith crime and the scourge ofdrugs And though at first thesemay sez.m to be unrelated issues,there are many linkages thatmembers of the education andcorrectional communities need toconsider, and to pursue. Thisarticle will explore the reality ofprison programming, as well astwo of these areas of mutualinterest - direct inmate educationand the broader task ofeducatingthe public and public policy-makers about corrections.

Our nation's tremendouseducation needs are manifest inpublic schools, institutions ofhigher learning, and in thegrowing realization that a majorsegment of our adult populationhas serious literacy deficits. Weread almost daily about concernsover declining SAT scores in thepublic schools. We hear about thefunding problems of publiccolleges and universities, and theintensive remedial work thatsome new college studentsmustbe provided in order tofunction at the post-secondary

bYJ. Michael Quinlan

level. We hear figuressuggestingthat as many as 20 percent of theAmerican population isfunctionally illiterate - in a dayand age that requires increasingverbal and mathematical skills forthe average citizen to functionsuccessfully.

In prisons, the situation is evenworse. Low inmate literacy levelsand the implications they havefor employability in the freeworldjob market mean that without theprospect of even a modest incomeobtained honestly, releasedinmates are far more likely torevert to crime. That is why,despite the understandableneedsin the public educational sector,correctional education is inserious need of attention andsupport.

It would seem that the value ofinmate educational programswould be widely understood andaccepted. Yet support for prisonprograms across the board isbecoming more difficult to obtainbecause there are tremendousconflicting public views oncorrections. Regrettably, thepublic is rarely (if ever) shown anaccurate view of today'scorrectional facilities in the U.S.The media loves to portray lowsecurity institutions as countryclub prisons, where prominentwhitecollar criminals polish theirtennis swing or maintain their golfskills. Who would want tosupport additional funding for

2

this kind of wasteand irresponsibleuse of public funds, if this weretruly taking place?

At the sanu time, there isno betterstory for the media than riots orscandals that portray prisons aseither the Black Hole of Calcutta ordens of corrupfion. If those storiesare true and prisons are that poorlymanaged, no-one is likely to wantto support them with addifionaltax dollars either.

Neither of these portrayals iscorrect. But in a way, thesedichotomies in the media mirrorthe differential views that can befound in American society onprison issues, which also can makeit hard to gain broad-basedsupportfor correctional programs. Thereare those who strongly advocatedeinsfitutionalization forallbut themost hardened, violent offenders.Opposite this group, there is thelock-ern-up-and-throw-away-the-key crowd - who want punitive,harsh prisons that supposedly willdeter criminality and terrifyinmates into not committinganothercnine. Therearethosewhotry to attain a workable middleground between these two camps,realizing thereartmenandwomenin prison who could be just as wellserved by some form ofintennediate punishment, as wellas those who probably nevershouldbe released. Which groupdoprisonadministrators appeal to forsupport, and how vulnerable is thatsupport tic, the wind s of the popularculture?

Notional Conference on Corrections & 4gfter Elucasion

True, there has been an impressiveamount of support for correctionsat every level of government inrecent years, to cope with aburgeoning inmate population.However, there is an increasingconcern regarding the dollar costsof corrections' expansion. Therearemany who fearthat these prison-related costs will adversely impactimportant societal programs,including public education. Callsforn ieprisonconstruction to copewith a growing inmate populationare positioned against the need tofund basic services for the law-abiding citizens of our nation. It ishard to argue that schools,hospitals, roads, and other servicesshould be curtailed to provide forthe needs of convicted criminals.As an example of this tension, thererecently was a move in the U.S.

Congress to curtail the Pell Grantprogram that funds educationprograms for inmates. Thismeasure was dropped inconference, but potential futureamendments are still a possibility,and this action was a sign thatobtaining support for inmateeducation and other programs is

going to be more difficult as publicfundsinmany other art are being

sharply curtailed.

Even now,prison constructionandoperating costs are taking anincreasing portion of the budget atevery level ofGovernment, and thepublic wants to be sure they arcgetting their money's worthforthisinvestment - that their funds arebeing used wisely on a day-to-daybasis in prisons. But at anotherlevel, they also want prisonersreleased "better" in some way thanwhen they went into prison. Thisraises questions about theexpectations we have of prisons inthe area of treatment andrehabilitation. What is it that wecan realistically expect prisoneducation and other programs to

do?

First, the public should be awarethat prisons are not equipped insome unique way to changeinmates into law-abiding citizens.Prison is the option of last resortforcourts confronted with offenderswho are products of failedexperiences with every otherpositive institution of society. By

the time an inmateanives inprison,the home, school,church, and othersocial agencies have all had anopportunity to intervene in thisperson's life -to no avail. It is totally

unrealistic to think thatstigmatizing such individuals,locking them away, and imposingprison programs (no matter howgood they might be) on them, willin some unexplained waypositively change an inmate.Prisons receive, by definition, thatselect group of offenders that posesa significant risk to the communityand who have been poorlymotivated to change in other lessstringent settings and programs - agroup defined by its veryunwillingnessorinability to change

positively. As a result, it isunrealistic to expect the prisonexperience to produce successes atthe same rate as communitytreatment program.

Second, the public should knowthat rehabilitation is a product ofthree separate elements - theinstitutional experience itself, thecommunity's involvement in theoffender's life, and the offender'spersonal actions and choices.

Prisons do have the first-stagerehabilitative responsibility ofproviding inmates with access tobasic program opportunities, such

as literacy and vocational training,substance abuse treatment,meaningful workassignrnentsandincluding jobs in prison industries,where inmates can learn afunctional workethicand job skills

3 7

that may be applicable in thecommunity. Staff, serving as rolemodels for inmates, can do a greatdeal toshow them now mainstreamvalues can be applied in day-to-day life. In short after fulfillingtheir public safety role,conectionalfacilities have an obligation toprovide inmates with anopportunity to acquire the toolsforself-improvementand law-abidingfunctioning upon release.

The community has a different butequally important responsibility -that of supporting offenders whilethey are incarcerated and acceptingthem back into society in ameaningful, non-stigmatizing way.Support during incarceration cantake several forms, but first andforemost is the willingness ofindividual members of thecommunity to volunteer their timeand skills to institutions. Thisprovier not only concrete programcontent to inmates,but alsoservingas a posi five rolemodel - modelingand validating the behaviors andvalues that staff are conveying in

formal institutional programs.Another means of communitysupport during incarceration is

through volunteer-assistedprograms like AA, PrisonFellowship, and others whichprovide auxiliary services toinmates. 'Yet another is through thewillingness of family and friendsto maintain contact withimprisoned offenders, assuringthem that they are still part of the

community,eventhoughseparatedfrom it. Finally, whileunderstandably skeptical of ex-offenders, society must be ready togive them a second chance byproviding employmentopportunities and assisting themwith suitable housing. Thissupportnetwork is vital.

However, the most important areaof responsibility falls on the inmate.For institutional programs to be

effective, and for community andvolunteer support to take root,inmates must choose to betterthemselves and to remain crime-free upon release. Each inmate hasthe responsibility to take advantageof whatever programsare availablewithin theinstitution. Inmateshavethe obligation to honor individualdebts (court ordered fines,restitution, child support, alimony,student loans, etc.) and beginpayment on these whileincarcerated. They also mustparticipate in maintaining familyand community ties, throughcorrespondenceandvisitation,andbegin planning for their eventualrelease through participa lion inpre-release classes and otherprograms.Upon release, the offender mustchoose to not commit anothercrime, find meaningfulemployment, adhere to anysupervision requirements they areobligated to follow, and in generalchoose to lead a productive life as alaw-abiding citizen. In the finalanalysis, the offender bears theultimate responsibility for successupon release.

Of course, the reality of prison lifeis tha t literacy problems and lack ofemployability are commondenominators for many inmates.Across the nation, if you were tosurvey the educational backgroundof convicted crimi nal offenders,youwould find that well over5Opercenthave not completed high school,and that a full 25 percent or moreare functionally illiterate. It isunlikely that criminal offenderswith this kind of background canobtain employment that willhonestly support even a modestadult life-style. As jobs becomeeven more specialized in the future,they will require more advancededucation and specialized trainingthat relies heavily on literacy skills.

Vtionaf Con/it-awe on Coffections & Higher Education

'There are those who argue thatprovidingcriminals witheducationonly helps them commit moreadvanced crimes. There is,however, no empirical support forthat proposition. Most inmatesinvolved in prison educationalprograms cannot even fill out a jobapplication or read a newspaperclassified job advertisement. Formany prisoners today, even a highschool education would be atremendous benefit. Literacy,short-term vocational training,andskill development needs of theinmate population are the primefocus of most prison educationalpmgrams.

Literacy is the Bureau of Prisons'highest priori ty a nd in fact has beena ma nda tory progra m system since1982. Basically, the Bureau'sp:ogram requires that inmatesattain a specified educational levelbefore they can be assigned iohigherpaying jobs in the institution.This facet of the Bureau'seducational program wasimplemented in a progressivefashion, starting with the 6th gradelevel and moving gradually to 12thgrade equivalency. As a result ofthis emphasis, literacy programcompletions are up 600 percentsince the mandatory programstarted in the Bureau.

Mandatory literacy works well inthe Bureau, and similar programshave been adopted in 17 states,which have c :her establishedmandatory literacy requirementsor are in the process of doing so.But thereare other successful prisoneducafion programsas well. Ohio'sliteracy units are a very successfulprogram in a state correctionalsystem. Thispilot program, fundedby a grant from the NationalInstitute of Corrections, providedthe impetus for innovativecomputer and tutoi-based inmateeducational programs.

4

College programs are among theoldest in prison education, and inan era when sentences are longer,inmates have the time to completea GED, one or more vocationaltraining programs, and thenundertake college-level work.Higher educa tion can givea persongreater self-esteem, help buildimproved value systems, anddevelop personal responsibility. Itis indisputable that AA and BAdegrees can make ex-offendersmore competitive and closer to theworkforce mainstream. For thosereasons, while the main emphasisis on other programs, Bureauinstitutions do offer 4 year collegeprograms, relying on communityand 4 year colleges in 23 states toprovide courses for approximately6,800 inmatesannually. lr.addition,inmates can enroll in credit andnon-credit self-study collegecourses through the extensiondivisions a various colleges, theCorporation for PublicBroadcasting, and other educationagencies.

As an example of the breadth ofprogramming available, in 1990,Bureau inmates enrolled in over16,800 individual post-secondarycourses involving 682,426instructional hours. In 1990, Bureauinmates received 126 associatedegrees, 52 bachelor of arts orscience degrees and two receivedmaster'sdegrees. Most AA degreesare occupationally-targeted, inareas li ke business education, foodservice, electronics, drafting andthe building trades.

Surveys continue to show thepositive post-release impact ofprison education programs. Themost recent such study, by PaulWreford, (1990) studied inmates inSouthern Michigan State Prisonwho participated in collegeprograms for 7 years. Of the 900

Ngtionat Conference on Correaions &Nigher Education

graduates, Wreford found therecidivism rate significantly lowerthan a national and Michiganparolee sample.

Education programs are not theonly area where support isneeded.Employers prefer workers whoalready have the required skills,

and in today's job market (which isalready biased against the ex-offender in so many ways) prisonvocational training programs canbe the deci di ng factor i n whether or

nor that individual is hired. Forthat reason, the Bureau provides awide range of vocational trainingprogramsto its inmates. In additionto traditional job training activity,Federal Prison Industriesprovidesex tensi ve pre-industrial training to

prepare inmates for employmentin prison industrial jobs.

The value of prison emplopnentand training programs has onlyrecently been validatedempirically.The Bureau of Prisons' PostReleaseEmployment Project (PREP)studydisclosed that inmates involved in

Federal Prison Industries jobassignments, vocational training,or both, had better institutionaladjustments, were less likely torecidivate, more likely to beemployed and earned slightly moreafter release from prison. As aresult, the Bureau is increasing thenumber of one or two yearvocational programs to furtherenhance the employability andcommunity success of releasing

inmates.

It is important to remember thatconections oinnot canyout prison

education programs alone.Cooperative relationships arevitally important, as the Bureautotally relies on communityresources for post-secondarycourses. It also relies heavily onvolunteer and contract communityresources for many of its other

educational and vocational (miningprograms.

But there also is a need to enlist theeducational community at a momsophisticated level than in thepast

- a level of involvement far beyondteaching inmates. The academiccommunity is respected, and canhelp the public understandcorrections better and assistcorrectional administrators indeveloping improved programs.

This can be done first via a directteaching role. Academia can makea concerwd effort to learn moreabout the real world of correctionstoday, and teach students moreaccurately and completely aboutthis important facet of our criminaljustice system. This need is notonly evident at the college level.Our society doesn't do a very goodjob of teaching our young peopletheir responsibilities as citizens, orabout the criminal justice systemand the sanctions that await law-breakers. This is an area inwhich a

great deal can be done.

Second, by helping correctionaladministratorsdevelop innovativeprograms, the correctional process

itself can be improved. Moreacademics can and must be willing

to roll up their sleeves and getinvolved in the day-to-dayproblemsof correctional educationand management to helpcorrectional ad mi nistra torsd otheir

jobs better.

Third, greater publicunderstanding of both educationand corrections is needed, in whichresearch can bean effective meansto that end. The academic worldcan help correctionsby conductingrelevant researchand bypublishingthat research in a way the publicand fund ingbodies forcorrectional

agencies can relate to.Appropriately designed research

5

projects also will provide useful

information to correctionaladministrators as they seek toimprove the programs they offer

inmates.

But this public information gapcannot be placed at the feet of theacademic world. There is nodoubtthat corrections as a profession andcorrectional practitioners asindividuals need to do more topromote a heightened level ofpublic understand ing aboutprisonissues in general and prisonliteracy

and education specifically. We

must convince the public and theother entities that they have a stakein the success of our programs and

operations.

The Bureau of Prisonshasbegun todo this in a number of ways. Bureau

administrators periodically holdcommunity forums, meeting withcommunity leaders, members of

the judiciary, the media, and thepublic. Bureau locations haveformed speakers bureaus to make

more information available to thepublic about our work. Bureaustaff visit in schools, speak to civic

groups, and are activeparticipantsin the education of theircommunities.

One of the centerpieces of thisoutreach effort is the use ofCommunity Relations Boards.These Boards, composed ofmembers of the community nearBureau institutions, serve as avehicle for establishing local

community support forinstitutional operations, and for

fostering good communicationsbetween the insautionand thelocalcommunity. Such programs give

the Bureau an opportunity toconvey its mission and to assurethat Bu rea u acti vi ties are in concert

with the community and the local

law enforcement apparatus.

Another key method ofcommunicating to the publicabou twhat prisons are really like onethat has maior operational benefitsas well - is through the use ofvolunteers in Bureau programs.There are more than 3,000volunteers involved in Bureauprograms nation-wide. Bureaueducation departments, inparticular, have a goal of increasingthe numberof volunteers, and therehas been considerable progresstoward that goal. In November1990, there were 421 volunteers inBureau educational and

Notional- Conference on Corrections & Oigher Education

recreational programs. Today,there are 691 - a 64 percent increase.For instance, volunteers fromMount Marty Collegeat the FederalPrison Camp in Yankton, SouthDakota; the University of Texas atthe Federal CorrectionalInstitution, Bastrop, Texas; andLinfield College at the FederalCorrectional Institution inSheridan,Ort wn,playan integralpart in those institutions'educational programming.Expansion of programs like this isa high priority.

610

Literacy and education are keyelements in U.S. society today, andcorrections must forge strong linksto the academic world to carry outits mission. The Bureau of Prisons,and corrections as a profession,aretrying to strengthen ties to theacademic community, asrecognizing that relationship canbe a valuable asset. This will be anever-important alliance, as wedevelop and carry out programsfor inma tes, ecluca te the public, andgain support for importantcorrectional education initiatives.

Notionof Confertna on Corrections er her T4111CtitiOn

MASS EDUCATIONAND THE LEGITIMATIONOF PRISON HIGHER EDUCATION

INTRODUCTION

Although the current goals ofcorrections departments tend toprioritize public safety throughthe provision of care and custodyof prisoners rather than throughrehabilitation, reformationremains a powerful sociallegitimation of contemporaryprisons. The prison, however,has never proven an effectivevehicle for the reformation ofoffenders. Throughout its history,a majority of prisoners releasedfrom custody have ultimatelycommitted fresh offenses andreturned to prison. There issignificant research suggestingthat incarceration encouragesrather than discourages criminalactivity (Pyfe, 1991). In the face ofthis historic failure, whichmotivated Marx to refer to theprison as the "university ofcrime," America incarceratesmore people (approximately Onemillion at the time of this writing),at a higher rate per capita, and forlonger periods of time than anyother nation.

Higher education has for morethan two decades legitimateditself as a vehicle for thereformation of criminal offendersin the prisons. Those of usinvolved in the educatiot, ofprisoners must recognize that themeaning of our work is intimatelyrelated to the question of how itbecame possible to includeprisoners in higher educationwithout undermining the moral

bYRaymond L. Jones

legitimacy of incarceration.Prison higher education is aspecial case in the expansion ofhigher education, which ha s beenmarked by the crea lion of varyinginstitutional types that roughlymirror the social status andexpecta tions of those who sough tto be included. Accordingly, thevalue of educational credentialsearned within the prison islargelydictated by the place of prisonerswithin the evolving structure ofcontexts through whichAmerican higher education hasexpanded. More specifically,prison education is an aspect ofmass education and this fact hasimplications for our legitimationof our practice in the prisons,

MASS EDUCATION

The pursuit of social mobilitythrough the acquisitbn of thecredentials that had becomeincreasingly requisite tooccupational success grewexponentially in the yearsfollowing the Second World War.Higher education, in part, metthis increasing demand withincreases in the economy of scaleamong existing elite anddemocratic institutions. But thiswas not sufficient. Vast numbersabsorbed into existinginstitutions, withoutsomemeansof differentiating amongparticipants, would havedramatically reduced the valueof educational participation andproven destabilizing for a classsystem partly legitimized by

7

11

variations in educationalachievement. A new educationalform mass education and acomplementary institutional typethe two-year community collegewould be the primary vehiclesthrough which escalatingdemands for inclusion would bemet. The more elite institutionswould also develop specializedcontexts marginal to and isolatedfrom their principal mission, tocapitalize on the economicrewards of mass educationwithout undermining the statusof their mainstream programs.Continuing educationdepartments, differentiatedwithin the intei nal structure ofinstitutions by theirentrepreneurial mission, are ahaven of such contexts.

Mass education and thecommunity college have beenrationalized as mechanismscapable of furnishing universalaccess to the benefits of higherlearning and responding to thechanging vocational needs ofsociety (Labaree, 1990). Masseducation, legitimated as aneducation accessible to all, wastruly that. But higher educationdoes not advertise theimplications of that accessibilityand the structure it supports.Mass educa tion, the new form tha twould permeate all others, isinvisible education. Masseducation, through a structurethat accentuates the deficienciesof aspirants and denies thelikelihood of change, rea sserts the

invisibility of the lowest classes(Brint & Karabel, 1989, Ginsburg& Giles, 1984; Labaree, 1990).

Through the stucture of masseduca tion, inequalities in wealth,power and status are perpe tu a ted(Brint & Karabel, 1989; Ginsburg& Giles, 1984; Labaree, 1990).Open admissions policies, forexample, affirm the lack ofd i stinctions between participantsand non-participants. Moreover,it is frequen tly argued that facultyat these institutions occupy thelowest realms of the "academicpecking order" and are presumedto possess inadequatequalifications and expertise foremployment in democratic andelite institutions. Concepts suLhas "University Without Walls"and "Open University"(Robinson, 1977) bespeak thedesire to decentralize learning inorder to reach special populations(Hendricks, 1983). They oftenemphasize self-directed and"prior learning" at the expense oftraditional instruction. lt is theseinstitutionsof mass education, weargue, that account for the vastmajority of higher education inAmerica's prisons.

Mass education in its variety offorms has absorbed much of theexplosive growth of highereducation, giving rise to claimsthat excluded groups now enjk,/equal access to the benefits ofhigher education. But this growthshould not be confused with theextension of opportunity for socialmobility or success. These newcontexts, legitimated as a steppingstone to democratic institutions,serve primarily to divert"unsuitable" candidates forinclusion. They would largely"cool out" aspirants by allocatingfailure and teaching students toarrive at "realistic" expectationsabouttheirprospectsfor academic

94tationd Conference on Corrections dr Nig fur Education

success. The community collegeis evolving into the newcomprehensive high school(Labaree, I990). It is a place whereone may acqu ire the ba sic literacyand competencies once certifiedby high school graduation. At itsabsolute best, it tracks students±nto the lowest realms of astratified occupational structure(Trimberger, 1973). At its worst,it warehouses otherwise idlepopulations while they learn todefine themselves as less thanable.

PRISON HIGHEREDUCATION AS MASS

EDUCATION

Higher education is a system ofcontexts that reproduce astratified society by regulating thesocial value of participation. Thesocial value of the teaching andlearning that occur in the prison isdelimited by the location of prisonhigher education within thissystem of contexts. Highereducation's historical pattern ofexpansion through the creationof educational forms and contextsthat roughly mirror socialexpectations about participantssuggests that it became possibleto educate prisoners preciselybecause some of those forms andcontexts are no longer wholly inconflict with social expectationsof what it means to be a prisoner.Prison higher education is anelement of mass education. It ischaracterized by marginalitywithin higher education, anabsence of selectivity that re-affirms the like identities ofparticipants and non-participants,and practices which suggest thathigher education exercises noinstitutional authority in relationto participants.

Marginality. Prison highereducation is marginal within

8

highereducation. Most programsare self-supporting anddependent on shrinking sta te andfederal entitlement programs tomeet program costs. Two-yearprograms leading to the associa tesdegree are in the majority andaccount for a high percentage ofpartici pa tion ra tes. Through four-year a nd even grad ua te programsexist, virtually all highereducation programs in Americanprisons are elements of thecontinuingeducation d i visions oftheir parent institutions andshould be regarded as marginal-within-a-marginal-enterprise.

The problems of meetingprogramcosts in the face of uncertainfunding, recruiting competentfaculty, securing access toacademic resources, andovercoming resistance to theeducationof prisoners preoccupyprosramdirectors. Few programsreceive funding from their parentorganizations. The progra ms lackaccess to the comprehensivelibraries and other educationalresources presumed elemental tohigher learning in the widersociety. Lack of awareness,geographical obstacles, ordepartmental disinterest andopposition hinder recruitmentamong faculty members andcompels reliance on part-timeinstructors who are ofteninexperienced. All of theseconstitute additional evidence ofmarginality with highereducation.

Selectivity. Virtually all programspossess "open admission"policies which exercise virtuallyno selectivity among prospectivestudents who possess theminimum qualifications. Theprincipal academic qualificationfor inclusion is possession of ahigh school or generalequivalency diploma. No

Muionat Conference on Corrections & fur Education

program known to this writerbases inclusion on past academicperformance. Although someprograms may require entranceexaminations or preparatorycourses, these are not evidence ofselectivi ty because they postponerather than deny admission.Financial aid status is typically arequirement for participation,butdoes not function as a form ofeconomic selectivity. Theprincipal source of funding isfederal Pell Grants, which areawarded on the basis of income,and almostall prisoners,asadultswho have no income, qualify byvirtue of incarceration.

Invisibility. All programs are "offcampus" and, by definition, arecharacterized by lowresidentiality in relation to highereducation. The contextof learningpermits no clearly definedboundaries between the"campus" and the social worldwhich participants inhabit andtherefore fails to suggest theinstitutional transfer of authorityrequisite to credible identitytransformation. Invisibility isstrongly suggested by limitedstudent access to faculty memberspartially dictated by thecircumstances of confinement.Yet it is further suggested byincidence of both low and hightechnology "distance education"programs, includingcorrespondence courses andcomputer-based instruction, inwhich faculty-student contacthours are minimal or nonexistent.

Prison higher education may beevolving into a specialized contextwithin mass education. Aspecialized context is one in whichaims and practicesarelegitimizedin relation to a specific category ofpersons. Prison higher educationappears to be a specialized contextbecause its practices are

principally legitimated almostexclusively as a vehicle for therehabilitation or reformation ofcriminal offenders. The literaturecalls attention to a multiplicity ofobjectives-among them increasedemployability (Homant, 1984),increased educational levels(Sea shore, et al.,1976), the meetingof psycho-social needs such asself-esteem (Pend leton,1988) - buteach of these may be consideredof secondary importance becausethey are presumed to beinstrumental to achieving therehabilitation of the offender. Theliterature is replete withstatements, which suggest tha t therehabilitation of offenders haspriority among the objectives ofhigher learning in the prisons.

Further evidence regarding aimsspecific to a category of persons isexpressed in that portion of theliterature relating to the nature ofprogram assessments andevaluations. A sampling ofassessments and evaluationsrevealed some which hadconcluded that there existed nocorrelation between participationin higher learning programs andthe rate at which offenderssubsequently returned to prison(Blumstein and Cohen, 1974;Seashore, et al., 1976) and otherswhich had concluded that asignificant correlation did in factexist (Chase and Dickover, 1983;Thorpe, Macdonald, and Bala,1984; Duguid, 1981; Blackabum,1981). Though the findings wereinconsistent, the principalmeasure of success employed inea It study was not. In every caseprogram efficacy was measuredin relation to recidivism.

IMPLICATION

Some may react to what has beenpresented here by noting thatthese factsappear self-evident and

9

by asking, "So What?" Yet in theface of this self-evident reality,we ask instead why i t is that prisonhigher education, in its languageand literature, is virtually silentabout something so fundamentalto itscharacter. Those who opposeprison higher education suggestthat prisoners are receiving aprivilege they do not deserve andargue that the inclusion ofprisoners in higher education hasthe potential to undermine themoral legitimacy and the socialmeaning of punitive confinement.Such a view can only be based onthe belief that higher education,i n all itsvariety of forms, possessesa meaning and value atodds withthe meaning of confinement.

Advocates of prison highereducation, of course, legitimate itas a personal status reformmovement. In essence, we havecelebrated the education ofprisoners as a remarkableindividual and collectiveachievement, capable ofredefining the personal status ofprisoners(Corcoran,1985). Whatwe seldom acknowledge,however, is the possibility thatthe inclusion of prisoners in highereducation is little more than theroutineand wholly unremarkableconsequence of the pattern ofexpansion in higher education.What we are silent about is thesimple fact that prison highereducation, far from anundeserved privileged, may bean "education appropriate toprisoners." Our silence, in short,fosters misperceptions about thevalue of prison higher educationand may exacerbate oppositionto the education of prisoners.

We should not pretend that wedo not understand why theobvious is so seldom stated. Toacknowledge that we offer aneducation appropriate to

! 3

prisoners, quite simply, is the defacto admission that prison highereducation has limited potential toreform or alter the status ofprisoners. The simple truth isthat there is no evidence thatsuggests tha t prison classification,parole or commutation aresignificantly influenced byparticipation in these programs,that participants enjoy lessdeprivation of legal rights or adifferential civil status than non-participantsbeforeor after release,that participants are exemptedfrom statutes that prohibitoffenders from entering variousoccupations, or that participantsenjoy differential rights andentitlements in relation to anyother institutional realm in thewider society.

Higher education has extended ahand into the prisons of America.That hand holds out the promiwof renewing a relationship withthe social world that confinementdenies. To grasp that hand is toseek a reunion with the worldbeyond prison walls. Prisoners,like the members of other socialcategories, see high education asan opportunity for inclusion anda chance for social mobility. Likeother social categories, they areincreasingly cognizant of thedifference between inclusion inan education of constant valueand indusion in a system thatsimply varies the meaning andvalue of participation as itembraces new aspirants forinclusion. Prison highereducation's location within the

Notional Conence on Corrections & Higher Education

objectified contexts of highereducation and its developmentasa specialized practice, however,suggests that it possesses limitedpower to create an altered statusamong participants.

However, to the extent that itclaims that power, highereducation's presence in the prisonshould be characterized by someconflict and marginality. Withinthe prison, faculty and staff ofprison education programs areoften perceived as intruders andmany report the necessity ofcircumnavigating the hostileattitudesof correctional staff. Theneeds of prison higher educationseldom rank high on the prioritylists of prison treatment staffs,whose own agendas seldom rankmore than a distant second tothose of security personnel.Significant conflict may arisewhen correctional personnelperceive that the representativesof higher education may not sharetheir nega tive assumptions aboutprisoners or their view of theappropriate role of staff (Tiller,1974). A 1988 study, for example,reports that even "correctionaleducators" employed by theprison system possess "overallnegative attitudes towardinmates" (Dansie, 1988). A 1985study revealed that correctionalofficers had substantially negativeattitudes toward higher levelacademic education for prisoners(Siano's 1988).

Prison higher education, despitethese limitations, is not without

10 4

value. The essential struggle ofthose in confinement is tomaintain the recognition of theirown and other's essential dignityand humanity. Higher educationhas led many prisoners to regardthemselves as changed. Byaffording opportunities to learnand grow in a milieu tha t degradesand defiles, to accomplish in anapparatus designed to affirmincompetence, to develop self-esteem while subjected tosystemic practices ofdehumanization andobjectification, those who bringhigher education into the lives ofprisoners offer the possibility oftranscendence. Just asimportantly, prison highereducation offers some hope forthe future. Though the creditsand degrees earned inconfinement secure few rights andentitlements in the wider society,the social and economic necessityof obtaining them is certain. Asthese credentials are increasinglydevalued, they are alsoincreasingly requisite at even thelowest levels of the occupationalhierarchy. To not possess themdiminishes the possibility of aproductive life, to not seek themis to accept permanentmembership in the underclass, todeny access to their acquisition isto practice a subtle form ofeconomic and social genocide.These fundamental facts must bethe foundation both for ourparctice within the prisons andthe legi timations we construct forprison higher education.

94Jtionat Conference on Corrections dr Higher Education

REFERENCES

Blackburn, F.S. (1981). The relationship betweenrecidivism and participation in a community college

program for incarcnrated offenders. journal ofCorrectional Educatimi, 32 (September) 23-25.

Blumstein, A. and Cohen, J. (1974). An Evaluation of a

College Level Program in a Maximum-SecurityPrison. Pittsburgh: Carnegie-Mellon University.

Brint, S. and Karabel, J. (1989). American Education,Meritocratic Ideology, and the Legitimation ofInequality: The Commun ity Collegeand theProblem

of American Exceptionalism. Higher Education,18(6),

725-35.

Chase, L.J. and Dickover, R. (1983) University Education

at Folsom Prison: An Evaluation. Journal ofCorrectional Education 34, 92-95.

Corcoran,F. (1985). Pedogogy in Prison. CommunicationsEducation, 34 (1), 49-58.

Dansie, G.S. (1988). Attitudes of Correctional AdultEducators toward Inmate Learners in Ohio's Prisons.

Dissertation, Ohio State University.

Duguid, S. (1981). Rehabilitation through Education: a

Canadian model. In L. Morin (Eds.), On Prison

Education Ottowa: Canadian Government Publishing

Office.

Foucault, M. (1975). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of

The Prison (A .Sheridan, Trans.). New York: Vintage.

Fyfe, J. (1991, March 31). Why Crime Won't Stop. Miami

Herald. p. 1C.

Gehring, T. (1988). The Connection Between Democracy

and Cognitive Process in Correctional Education.Journal of Correctional Education. 39 (June): 62-69.

Ginsburg, M.B. and Giles, J.R. (1984). Sponsored andContest Modes of Social Reproduction in Selective

Community College Programs. Research in Higher

Education, 21, 3, 281-299.

Coffman, E. (1968). Asylums. Garden City, NY:Doubleday.

Hendricks, J. (1983). Higher Education's Pursuit of the

Lifelong Learner. Gerontology & GeriatricsEducation, 3, 4, 253-258.

Homant, R.J. (1984). On the role of values in correctional

education. journal of Correctional Education.

5(March): 8-12.

Labaree, D.F. (1990). From Comprehensive High School to

Community College: Politics, Markets, and theEvolution of Educational Opportunity. Research in

Sociology of Education and Socialization, 9, 203-240.

Pendleton, E.P. (1988). Student-Centered Instruction: A

Prison CollegeModel forBuildingSelf-Esteem. Journal

of CoirectionatEducation. 39 (June) 82-84.

Robinson, T. (1977). The Invisible Student. New Society,

41, 771, 66.67.

Seashore, Ma)orie J. et al., (1976). Prisoner Education:

Project Newgate and Other College Programs (New

York: Praeger).

Siano, J.N. (1985). An Analysis of the Attitude ofCorrectional Officers Toward Inmate EducationalPrograms in Oklahoma's Minimum_Medium andMaximum Security Institutions. Dissertation,University of Oklahoma.

Thorpe, T.; MacDonald, D. and Bala, G. (1984). Follow up

study of offenders who earn college degrees whileincarcerated in New YorkState. Journal of Correctional

Education 35 (September): 86-88.

Tiller, G.L. (1974). A Study of The Dual Administrationof

a Penal Education Program: The case of Lee College

and theTexas Department ofCorrections. Dissertation,University of Houston.

Trimberger, E.K. (1973). OpenAdmissions: A new form of

tracking? The Insurgent Sociologist, 4(1), 29-43.

111 g

Vtionaf Conference on Corrections dr Niger Education

THE ROLE OF POST-SECONDARY EDUCATIONAND CORRECTIONS

Those of you who are familiarwith my American CorrectionalAssociation (ACA) efforts areaware that I have promotedenhanced partnerships betweencorrections and education inseveral areas. Specifically, I ha veemphasized the necessity for allof ACA's chapters and affiliatesto engage in crime preventionactivities by working withchildren at risk in the variouscommunities and that as a part ofthis effort, they become involvedwith schools, e.g. adopt a ckssand otherwise work to save ot rchildren. I have promoted effor :

on behalf of prospectivecorrectional employees.Correctional administrators werehappy to see the increasednumbers of colleges anduniversitiesbegin to offer criminaljusticP and corrections degrees.However, when the newgraduates became employed,administrators noted in manycases that their training did notmatch their job responsibilities.Consequently, upon assuming theoffice of ACA President, I revisedthe charge of the ProfessionalEducation Council. They wereasked to determine the feasibilityof developing a partnership withcolleges and universities whichallow the field of corrections toimpact the curriculum to moreappropriately meet the needs ofcorrectional agencies.

So then, I encourage thisConference's participants tocontinue the diligent effort foreffective partnerships betweencorrections and education relative

byHelen G. Corrothers

to potential offenders orsalvageable children, to increasethe capabilities andprofessionalism of our potentialand current employees as well asto providing education to thoseoffenders who are in correctionalcustody. It is thislatter group thatwill be my focus today.

Using the topic of the conference"The Role of Post-SecondaryEducation and Corrections," I willshare the philosophy thatcontinued focus in this area is inthe best interest of the criminaljustice system,correctionsand thiscountry. Looking at the questionof whether we have an implicitmanda te or justification to educateoffenders, I will briefly explorethe underlying theories that haveinfluenced the purposes of thecriminal justice system andcorrections, stopping to look ateducating offenders in light of thecriminal justice system's role ofpunishment and protecting thepublic. I will share results ofrelevant research and note anycompatibility wi th the establishedpurposes of corrections. Finallynoting the current crisis andchallenges of convincing asometimesunwilling public of thenecessity to continue theseprograms, I will speak to a viableapproach for amelioration of thesedifficulties.

THE JUSTIFICATION FORCORRECTIONAL

EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS

Since corrections is not an islandbut a part or component of the

12

.1 6

criminal justice system, let's lookquickly at the underlying theoriesthat have influenced the purposesof the criminal justice system andcorrections. The system can beviewed as a mechanism for thedispensation of punishment. ( Agood definition of punishment isprovided by Charles W. Thomasand I quote, "punishment is anylawfully imposed pain, suffering,or loss of otherwise availablerights con fronted by an act oras aconsequence of this or herculpable criminal action orinaction.")(1987) It's importantto ask, why must we have thispain dispensing mechanismcalled the criminal justice sys tem?Indeed, why inflict pain. Themoreprevalent view concerning thejustification for punishment isthree fold: retribution, crimeprevention and rehabilitation.The objective of retribution toprovide the punishment deservedas a result of looking back at thecrime committed, its seriousnessor harm done and the offender'sculpability. Crime Preventionsuggests that it is more reasonableto look forward in time versusbackward since the major concernshould be the future benefits ofpunishment, deterrence andincapacitation. Rehabilitation, thethird justification for punishment(I call this the historical definitionof the rehabilitation theory) differsmarkedly from the other twomajor theories. For example, allretributionists believe offenderswould be punished in proportionto the seriousness of the offenseor harm done and utilitarians

Notional Confervice on Corrections & 5491ter Education

believe the degree of punishmentshould be just the amountnecessary to deter criminality inthe future. Both views share thepremise that the offender isresponsible for his conductbecause he made the decision tocommit the crime. With thetraditional theory ofrehabilitation, there is the beliefthat crime is somewhat asymptom of a diseaseconsequently the focus of thenecessary effort is not seen aspunishment but treatment forhowever long as necessary. It isnot believed that the offenderhasthe ability to chose, thus he isrelieved of the accompanyingmoral responsibility for theoffense. (As a side issue, it's nowonder that the topic ofrehabilitation is controversialbecause there are many differentinterpretations and definitionsascribed to the theory. Yourspeaker, for example, along witha number of other correctionspractitioners consider (what Icall), the traditional theory asbeing problematic. For example,the model of rehabilitation that I

used rather successfully as aprison warden was built in the1970's using accountability,responsibility, discipline andfairness as it's cornerstones.)

There are those that believe thatthese three theories underlyingthe purposes of criminal justice,including corrections, areincompatible. This speaker,ba sedon personal experiences, believesthat a multi-objective theory is

workable. That it is notinconsistent to combine the threetheories. I believe that offenders'punishment should be guided byoffense seriousness andculpability of circumstancessurrounding such behavior.Further, that crime prevention isa worthwhile goal achievable

through punishment and risk-reducing or rehabilitativeprograms. The ultimate goal,then, of this multi-objecti ve theoryproduces in my mind thepurposes of the criminal justicesystem which is the protection ofthe public and the reduction ofthe incidence of crime in America.

While the official purposes andthe ultimate goals are the samefor each of the variouscomponentsof thecriminal justicesystem, one component mayplacegreater emphasis on a particularpurpose than other components.Al9a, there may be differences inthe manner that they are pursuedand achieved. For example, incorrections probation, supervisedrelease and parole promotepunishment, deterrence, publicprotection and rehabilitationthrough conditionsof release. Thecourts achieve the purposes ofpunishment, deterrenceL andincapacitation or thegoal of publicprotection through the impositionof a sentence. If the sentence is aterm of imprisonment, the loss ofliberty (punishment) will preventthe commission of offenses forthe period of the sentence(incapacitation) and hopefullydeter both theoffender and othersfrom future crimes (special andgeneral deterrence). Thecommitment to prison triggers thecorrectional institution'scontribution to these samepurposes (punishment,deterrence and incapacitation). Ofcourse, when corrections assumesresponsibiliv for offenders, theoverriding concern or primarygoal is tha t of protecting the publicby achieving two objectives. Thefirst objective is preventingescapes and holding in a safe andhumane fashion the offendersuntil their lawful release. Thesecond objective is to assistoffenders in the successful

13 17

reintegration into society, byproviding what I call "riskreducing" programs. It is notedthat the secondary objective ofassistingoffenders into successfulreintegration into society has theultimate aim of crime prevention.Obviously, both objectives of theCorrections Component serve toprotect the public. Thus,corrections' goal is the same asthe remaining components of thecriminal justice system.

IS EDUCATIONCOMPATIBLE WITH THEESTABLISHED PURPOSES

OF CORRECTIONS?

Educational programs fit into thesecondaryobjectiveof corrections,assisting successful reintegrationinto society by increasing themotivation to lead a crime-freelife. We are able to proveeducation programs'compatibility with the establishedgoal or purposes of corrections bylooking at relevant research.

We can talk positively about theeffects of correctional post-secondary education from twoperspectives: recidivism and cost.

All of the studies from the late70's and 80's suggest a positivecorrelation between the college-educated and a low rate ofrecidivism.

Among the studies, we find:

In 1979, Blackburn showed only37 percent recidivism amongreleases who attended collegeversus 58 percent among thosewho did not attend college.

In the 1980's, a study conductedat New Mexico State Prisonshowed a 15% recidivism rate forinmates who had completed onecollege course or more at the

prison's university extensionprogram versus a 68% recidivismrate for the general population.

A second New Mexico studyreported that recidivism forinmate students who completed40 or more hours was less thanone-fourth of the recidivism rateof the general population.

In 1976, the Ball State Universityextension program at the IndianReformatory was started. In 1982,an institutional memo noted thatof more than 200 inmates whoearned their degrees, none hadreturned as inmates there.

In 1983, a study conducted atFolsom Prison in California,reported a zero percent rate ofrecidivism for those who hadcompleted a baccalaurea te degree.By comparison the rate ofrecidivism for the generalpopulation in the prison systemwas 55 percent within three yearsof their release from prison.

All of these programsdemonstrate that if we giveinmates the chance, if we educatethem, they can reintegrate intosociety,as well as stay out ofprison. And keeping inmates outof prison pays off financially sowe save money when we spendmoney to educate inmates. Itcomes down to this. We can payfor educating inmates or we canpay for more and more prisonbeds. At the rate we're goingnow, at least 1,600 new prisonersand 700 individuals are detainedin jail every week. Even if we areconservative, and cost out eachbed at only $50,000 in capitalconstruction cnsts, we need tospend $110 million every week or$5.72 billion every year just tokeep up with the increase.

National Conference on Corrtctions & 941ter Education

The Illinois Criminal JusticeInformation Authority reportedlast year that Illinois spent nearly$2.4 billion on all criminal justiceservices.

School District 428 at the IllinoisDepartment of Corrections spentoneand one-eighth of that money,about $27 million. Ray Quick,Superintendent of the SchoolDistrict 428, feels that the moneyspent on education was wellworth it. That it is apparent "ifyou compare what it costs to senda person back to prison. Thateven if we do not count the cost tovictims of crime and the cost ofwelfare payments to paroleesbecause they can't hold a job, it'sstill worth it.

The Superintendent lists the costsof: the second or third arrest, thejail time, the trial and conviction,the prison time, the lost taxes andthe supervision of that felon oncehe or she is released again toparole. He states and I quote"from an economic slant, there'sno doubt our education programsare cost effective. A teacher has toreach only one student a year topay his or her salary." He goes onto say "my biggest fear is that wecould see some reduction in ourcollege level programs due to thebudget constraints faced by thestate. These inmates who buyinto the system at the lower levelsand progress to college coursesare the ones least likely to comeback. But only if we can get themthat associate degree or four-yeardegree. That's where therecidivism rate can be reduced by60 to 70 percent or more." Headds "the argument that weshould not be spending moneyon educating inmates when thestate school systems are in needof money just doesn't hold up.The money that we would needto operate the prison system and

14

18

house the inmates that theeducation programs help to keepout of prison, would exceedsavingsgained by the cu ts." Whenwe see the effects of a post-secondary education in bothrecidivism and dollars and centsterms, not to mention in humanterms, how can we not feelcompelled to find monies toprovide that education.

THE CRISIS

However, we do have ourdifficultiesinproviding treatmentor risk-reducing programs ingeneral as well as in educationboth during the good times andespecially during the presenteconomic situation. Among thecurrent challenges is thethreatened loss of the Pell grants.For some years, the Pell grantshave helped many inma tes to stayout of prison and to reintegrateinto society.

In 1991-92, Pell grants will go tomore than 3.4 million students.Most of these students come fromfamilies with incomes below$35,000, although by law, themaximum grant can go as high as$3,100. Congress has neverappropriated enough money toallow grants larger than thecurrent $2,400. Under law, Pellgrants can cover up to 60 percentof tuition costs. In 1991, 36,030inmates received Pell grants. Thisnumber translates into $36million, a small percentage of thenearly one billion dollars spentevery year for Pell grants. Butthis number also means that atleast five percent of our inmatepopulation is reaching out forsomething better. The degree towhich states rely on Pell grantsvaries widely. Some states usePell grants exclusively, otherssupplement them. Still others relyon Pell grants very little.

Notiona 1. Conference on Corrections & Itigher Education

Washington State, for example,depends very little on Pell. Itspends $8.5 million of its ownmoney on educating inmates invocational and college levelcourses. Some states includingMaryland and Ohio arrange fortwo and four year colleges toprovide post-secondary coursesbut charge inmates for the tuition.In these cases, inmates themselvesapply for and receive Pell grants.New Mexico follows a mixedmodel. Inmates can receive a freeeduca lion at Santa Fe Communi tyCollege but need to pay at othercolleges or universities. Forinstance, at one prison operate bythe Corrections Corporation ofAmerica, Brannen offers all post-secondary courses and requiresinmate students to obtain Pellgrants to pay for them. Howeverthey are relied upon as Pell grantshave been one of the greatestboosts that we in correctionaleducation have had to fulfill ourmandate.

"The funds are not limitless" hasbeen used as a rationale fordenying the funds to inmates bythe President of John WoodCollege. A Congressional stafferhas said that the inmate is notseen as a "traditional student."Finally, a proposed amendmentto the reauthorization of theHigher Education Act wouldelimina te inmate eligibility for Pell

grants.

I'm advised that at last count,some 45 states had already sentdata to Senator Pell, Chairman ofthe Subcommittee on Education,informing the Committee of theextent thatPell grantshavehelpedto successfully reintegrate manyinmates through the educationprocess.

An Illinois inmate, Leroy Brooks,sent a very meaningful plea to the

Congress asking their support toretain the Pell grPnts. He madethe point that the grant is notwelfare. He said and I quote "thePell grant is an investment by thetaxpayer and not a give-away.Prisoners coming fromunemployed, illiterate andunproductive life styles arereturning equipped to participatein the job market." He also saidand I quote "income taxes paidfrom the ex-offender's first tweyears' wages repays the cost of

the Pell grant awards..." Andfinally, obviously referring to thefact that prisoners are in any eventel igible upon release, he notes thatfailure to provide them the useofthe grant prior to release wouldserve to delay any positive resultof the education. What I'm sureisimplied here though not said, isthat education has a better chanceof increasing one's propensity fora changed life style if this processis begun early, that is to say,priorto release. (We could saywithoutthe distraction of liberty.)

When we look at our current crisisin education, we know what ourapproach must be. The point is

illustrated by this story.

THE PLAN

In 1961, the National EducationAssocia tion's jou rnal published astudy which was revealed in anarticle by William G. Perry, whowas then Director of the Bureauof Study Counsel at Harvard. Hereported on a 20-year experimenton teaching 1,500 Harvard andRadcliffe students how to readbetter. Year by year he said it isbecome apparent that what thestudents lack isnot the mechanicalskills but flexibility and purposein the use of their skills. Whatthey seem to do with almost anykind of reading, he said, is to openthe book and read from one word

15 1 0

to the next, havihg in advanceabandoned all responsibilityabout the purpose of the readingto those who had made theassignment. Subsequent to this20-year experiment, Dr. Perryconcluded that students whenburdened with detail, wherepurpose is delibera tely vague, willin most cases not exert any effortto determine the purpose of theassignment. Sadly, he remarkedthat "after 12 years of readinghomework assignments in school,students had settled into thehabitof leaving the point of it all tosomeone else."

And now, in 1991, thirty yearslater, we can conclude that thepublic, including our policymakers and legislators are miredin detailand are leaving the pointof it all" to someone else. We arethe appropriate "someone else."Who is better qualified?

If commitment is dwindling, andthe purpose is not clear, it is up to

us correctional educators andadministrators to keep the "pointof it all" in front of the public. Thepoint of it all, I submit, is crimereduction and/or the protectionof the public.

Obviously, the key to continuedsupport for education in generalin addition to the continuationspecifically of the Pell grants isour most strenuous effort to passalong the information concerningthe evidence that education istransforming inmates intoresponsible citizens. We mustcontinue to talk about thereduction in the recidivism ratesof inmates who have strengthenedtheir skills, their knowledge andtheir approach to life and finally,we must emphasize the w!gativeimpact that will result fromeliminating risk-reducingprograms or eliminating Pell

grants or decreasing our fundsfor education in general.

We know that all of Americaneducation is in crisis right now.Americans are testing near thebottom of world standards forreading and math. The reason forthis appalling situation is that foryears, education has just not beena national priority. And similarly,according to researchers, whenwe investigate the variouspriorities of correctionaladministrators, we find thateducation is also not seen as apriority item.

There is a current nationwideemphasis on education. At thebeginning of hi:: term, PresidentBush held an historic summit inCharlottesville. His focus waseducation for everyone. Hedeclared and I quote, "the timehas come for the first time in theUnited States to establish clearnational performance goals.Goals that will make usinternationally competitive."

At that meeting, six nationaleducation goals were established.The fifth national goal specificallyaddresses our challenge. It readsand I quote "by the year 2000,every adult American will beliterate and will possess theknowledge and skill necessary tocompete in a global economy andexercise the rights andresponsibility of citizenship." Itis our challenge to educate to theextent possible those offenderswho are willing to make use oftheir available time duringpunishment to prepare for aresponsible and crime-free lifeupon release.

On October 4, 1991, GovernorRomer of Colorado spoke aboutthis crisis and about what he wasgoing to do in Colorado to redirect

National. Conference on Corrections er Higher Education

priorities and place education atthe top of his list. He said that ifwe believe that education isfundamental to succeed ing in life,then we must take responsibilityfor educating. We must say, asGovernor Romer did, "It's justnot good enough for us to say:This is where we are. We've triedeverything we could. There's notmuch more we can do about it."

It is up to us to see the crisis or theconstraints and obstacles aspreventing our success or to seethem as opportunities for ourcreative and innovative abilities.It's up to us to a low the difficultieswe face to farceur ko develop newstrategies and reformulate oldones leading us to our goals by adifferent route. As I said to ACAin 1987, "Corrections must helpshape its own destiny or sufferthe consequences." It is up to usto keep the problems and thesolutions in front of the public.To convince the public that theinmate can be punished throughthedepriva tion of his orher libertyand at the same time have themparticipate in programs to includeeducation that may change theirattitudes toward the acceptanceof positive value systems. It is upto us to convince the public thateducating those adults who havefa Ilen through the cracks of societyis in America's best interest. Thatit is about public safety.

The fact that educating inmates isnot a simple task hasbeen pointedout to us by researchers such asRouch (1983) and Corcoran (1985)who note the need forconsiderable improvement incorrectional educa lion programs.They point to a lack of societalsupport, lack of collaborationbetween correctional andeducational leaders, poorresources and inadequateplanningasonlya few of the many

16

2 0

problems. They note that oneglaring omission is the lack ofpost-secondary educationalopportunities for the ever-increasing qualified inmate. Theynote that education is necessaryto prepare future citizens to leadproductive lives, that prisoneducation should hold highpriority in the rehabilitation ofthe incarcerated. Theirinvestigation into the variouspriorities of prison officials havefound education at the bottom ofthe list. These and otherresearchers have noted internalproblemsconcerningthedeliveryof educational programs, such asthe lack of support among thecorrectional officers as well asresearch studies that have foundconsistent problems concerningprison officials viewingeducational roles as beingcontradictory to correctionalgoals. Obviously, our strategy toconvince an unwilling publicmust also be directed to thosecorrectional employees andofficials who have not yet seenthe tie between the objective ofeducating inmates and crimereduction. We must in many casesget back to the basic purposes ofthe ce:minal justice system andthe purposes of corrections in ourstrategy. This is vital to ouracquisition of support fromcorrections practitioners as wellas from the general public.

When I reviewed the requesteddata reflecting tne impact ofeducation on offenders, some ofwhich was used in thispresentation today, I thought itstartling and extremelyimportant. My immediatethought was that the findingsfrom the various research in thisarea have probably been one ofour best kept secrets. Using thisdata should be the main focus ofour marketing plan designed

Nationat Conferme on Corrections & HigherEducation

specifically to obtain support forcorrectional post-secondaryeducation. We will need todevelop our plan as carefully asMcDonald's or 'urdue or anycommercial business. The planmust focus on three questions: (1)what is our product and purpose;(2) who is our target audience and(3) what do we want our "buyers"to do?

To addressbriefly these questions:

(1) What is our purpose? Ourpurpose is to convince anunwilling public that educatirginmates is one of the smartevtmoves they can make. Tcconvince the public in graphicpie-chart waysthat it costs themmore tax dollars to keep inmatesin prison, as well as keep bringinginmates back to prison. Toconvince legislators that inmateeducation is an investment inAmerica. Toconvincecorrectionaladministrators and correctionalofficers, at all levels, thateducating inmates is consistentwith the goals of criminal justiceand corrections and is the bestsecurity that we have.

(2) Who is our target audience?Our target audience is a publicwho is angry about crime and

criminals, tird of extendingtaxpayers' dollars which don'tappear to bring them theirdesiredcommodity of safety. A publicwho concentrates on their ownproblemsfinancial problemsin sending their own children tocollege. The public includeslegislators, policy makers,foundations, private enterprise,correctional administrators andcorrectional staff at all levels.

(3) What do we want our "buyers"to do ? We want our buyers tochange their attitudes abouteducating inmates based on theinformation provided by us thatshows them unequivocally thatthe money spent on educatinginmates is an investment inAmerica's future as well as theirown safety. We want them , as aresult of their attitude change, toprovide financial and emotionalsupport. We want them to assistus in meeting themandate that isimplied by the mission ofcorrections to educate inmates inorder to assist our efforts instopping the destructive cycle ofcrime.

It is important to note that as apart of changing the public'sattitude about educating inma tes,

1721

we must proceed to plan andimplement an aggressive strategyconcerning research, conductingmore research as well asaggressively publishing theresults of research alreadycompleted. We need to tell of thenow secret success stories ofparolees who use their educationto become prod ucti ve citizens. Weneed to use television, largemetropolitan newspapers andpublic forums, dedicated tofocusing America's attention onthe need for education and thepotential benefits. We need todevelop effective partnerships ofcorrectional practitioners,educators, legislators, marketingpeople, media and otherrepresentatives of the public.Finally, we must believe that thejob can be done.

CLOSING

Extremely moving remarksreflecting purpose and value ofeducation were found in a March14, 1991, open letter to inmates.You have no doubt seen it,nevertheless, I would like to sha reit as I close.

Notionat Conference on Corrections 4rY Higher Education

THE CORPECTIONAL CRISIS & THEECONOMICS OF POST-SECONDARY

CORRECTIONAL EDUCATION

For the past few decadesAmericans have expressed theirgrowing dismay over what theyperceive as the continual risingrate of crime. The publicconsternation, echoed or perhapsfueled by elected officials in their"war on crime" rhetoric, hasresulted in many states rewritingtheir sentencing law, stiffeningtheir probation guidelines andexpanding their use ofincarceration as their chief tool ofdeterrence. Subsequently,corrections in the nation hasreached a state of infrastructuraland fiscal crisis.

THE CORRECTIONALCRISIS

Barrett and Greene (1989) reportthat "every week, like clockwork,the total number of prison inma tesn the Uni ted States grows by 1,000

people." Today, four millionAmericans are under some formof correctional supervision, withover 800,000 behind barsaninstitutional growth rate inexcessof 250 percent s ce 1980 (Zawitzet al., 1992). The future is evenmore grim; for Williams (1989)notes that the US. SentencingCommission estimates that therewill be doubling of the prisonpopulation over the next decade.

The cost of incarcerating everincreasing numbers of thepopulation, at an average cost of$25,800 a year (Zedlewski, 1987),

byjon M. Taylor

now consumes $20 billionannually (Dilulio, 1991), up from$13 billion only six years before(131S data report,1989,1990). Evenwith these immenseexpendituresprojected toexceed $70 billion over the nextfew decades in construction alone(Ticer, 1989)approximately 900State and federal prisons on-line(Skelton,1989) and 100additionalinstitutions under construction(Barrett and Greene, 1989) areoperating at between seven andtwenty-four percent abovecapacity (BIS Data Report, 1988,1989). Theovercrowding problemhas manifested itself to the pointthat by 1991, 45 (90 percent) statecorrectional systems, whole or inpart, were under some form ofcourt order to reduceovercrowding and improveconditions (Correction Forum,1992).

The funds for these massive andalready delinquent buildingprograms, in addition to currentand future operating budgets,have to come from somewhere atthe expense of someone else. Thecorrectional systems of manystates, Gleckman (1989) observes,are becoming their fastest growingbudget item. The double-digitincrease in correctional budget.are adversely affecting everyone,from our children's education toour own healthcare to our parents'retirement foundation. BenjaminBaer, Chairman of the U.S. Parole

18

Commission, realistically focuseson the dilemma: "sooner or lateryou have to ask whether you arewilling to let your kids have amediocre education in order tosend a few more people to prison"(Barrett and Greene, 1989).

AFFIRMATION OF THEREHABILITATION ETHIC AS

A SOLUTION

A 1988 American Bar Associationreport warns that answers to thegrowi ng criminal justice problemare not so simple as merelymaking more arrests andimposing longer prison sentences.The report stresses thatimmediate action needs to betaken "to rethink our strategies"for dealing with the criminaljustice crisis afflicting our nation(Dash, 1988). Rehabilitation isnow seen as the 'key," Ticer (1989)reports, to reining in seeminglyrampaging correctional budgets.As Quinney (1979) observed, "thecorrectional movement of thiscentury has counted on the prisonas serving as a center forrehabilitating offenders as wellas confining them."

Americans, even with perceivedrising crime rates, have su pportedthis correctional philosophy ofrehabilitational confinement ethicas the purpose of corrections inthis nation. (Jacoby and Dunn,1987: Roberts, 1992).

94uionat Conference o Corrections de .9figherEducation

Doble (1987) reports that aqualitative analysis of publicopinion revealed that "Americansfeel that the primary goal of theprison system should be torehabilitate offenders,...but theyfeel that the prison system isfalling short of meeting that goal."

However, just how effective areour correctional systems inrehabilitating those in theircharge? Sadly, in the overallanalysis, not very good. Thenationally reported rates ofrecidivism for released offendersextend from a low of nearly 50pei cent (Beck and Shipley, 1987)to a high of 70percent (Greenfield,1985). George Ralston, a retiredtwenty-year administrator withthe Federal Bureau of Prisons,comments that "the penal systemcould and should greatlycontribute to society. As it nowoperates it is only warehousingthose who have offended thecommunity." Resulting in thefrightful and expensive cycle ofcriminalization, victirniza tion a ndincarceration that is virtuallyperpetual for large numbers ofprisoners in our nationscorrectional facilities.

POST-SECONDARYCORRECTIONAL

EDUCATIONPROGRAMMING

Amid this turmoil, there is aprogram structure that hasdemonstrated cost-effectivesuccess in reducing offenderrecidivismPost-SecondaryCorrectional Education (PSCE).Not only have these programopportunities significantlyreduced participant recidivismthrough the cognitivemetamorphosis they create, butalso yield highly educated,valuable workers for thecountry'seconomy. Pend leton(1988)

advocates PSCE programming as"an educational tool designed toreclaim lost manpower to thecommunity through an academicprogram of rigorous intellectualdiscipline. . . .(Such post-secondary opportunities seek) toenable incarcerees to redirect theirlives through the discipline of atrained mind."

There is a growing body ofevidence that such PSCEprograms do significantlyreducerecidivism and greatly enhancethe employment prospects ofparticipants. Thomas (1974)reported that participants of theBurlington County College (NJ)PSCE program experienced arecidivism rate of 10 percent,compared to an overall rate of 80percent. Thompson (1976)reported similar findings of theAlexander City State JuniorCollege (AL) prison program,with a recidivism rate of 16percentfor inmate-students compared toa national recidivism range of 70-

75 percent. Blackburn (1979)noted that involvement in theMaryland Correctional TrainingCenter's PSCE program reducedstudents' recidivism to 37percent,while 57 percent of the non-students returned to the system.

In 1980, the Texas Department ofCorrections' evaluation of itshigher education opportunityconcluded that "participation inthe junior college programdefinitely results in lowerrecidivism rates (Gaither). Thenext year, Duguid (1981) reportedthat 14 percent of the Universityof Victoria's prison programparticipants recidivated, while amatched group of non-participants suffered a 52 percentreturn rate. Psychology Today(1983) published a study notingthat "reddivism...among inmateswho took college classes at the

New Mexico State Penitentiarybetween 1967 and 1977 averaged15.5 percent, while the generalpopulation averaged 68 percentrecidivism." The same year,Chase and Dickover (1983) reportthat graduates from the FolsomPrison Baccalaureate programexperienced a zero percentrecidivism rate, w hi le the averagerecidivism rate for Californiaparolees was 23.9 percent for thefirst year and 55 percent withinthree years after release. Thorpe,Macdonald, and Gerald (1984)"found thata sampleof offenderswho earned degrees whileincarcerated (in New York) had asubstantially lower return ratethan the projected rate based onthe departments' overall data."

Barker (1986) observed of BostonUniversity's, then seventeen-year-old PSCE program, that the"recidivism rate of its releasedgraduates and matriculatedstudents (about 80) stands thusfa rat zero." Holloway and Moke's(1986) analysis of the LebanonCorrectional Institution's (OH)college program revealed a 11percent recidivism rate forparticipants, compared to anoverall return rate of 30 percentfor high school dropouts after oneyear. The District of Columbia'sLorton Prison Program cites a sixpercent recidivism rate for itsstu den ts, compa red to a 40 percen trate for offenders returned tosimilar environments (AnnualReport, 1990). Finally, in 1991,the New York Department ofCorrectional Services released itsfive year study of their InmateCollege Program, Which found a"statistically significant"difference in the return rates ofparticipants who earned degreesand those who did not completeprogram requirements. These"findings suggest that earning acollege d egree while incarcerated

is positively related to successfulpost-release adjustments asmeasured by return to theDepartment's Custody" (CEANews Notes, 1992).

Post-Secondary CorrectionalEducation graduates areemployed at higher rates thanother released offenders,suggesting that the educationreceived at least partiallycompensates for the social stigmaattached to their "ex-con" status.Wolf and Sylves (1981) reportedthat of 300 released graduates ofthe Npw York Inmate CollegeProgram, 75 percent wereemployed after their release.Similarly, Holloway and Moke(1986) noted that 67 percent ofAssociate degree recipients fromthe Lebanon Correctional Centerwere employed at the height ofthe 1981-82 recession, while only40 percent of the matched groupof high school dropouts obtainedemployment. Theseemploymentrates are noteworthy whencompared to at the time of arrest,only half of the nation's prisonerswere either unemployed or hadonly part-time positions (Bureauof Justice Statistics, 1988) andLittlefield (1990) reported that lessthan one quarter of Ohio's prisoninductees held full-timeemployment at the time of theirarrest.

Anecdotal evidence of theemployment viability of PSCEprogramming can be found withthe Corrections Program of theCollege of Santa Fe (NM) in theway such training assisted inturning around the wasted livesof its successful graduates. Onegraduate of the program went onto become a physician (M.D.) andanother a vice-president of aninternational company. A female"ex-con" is now a personheldirector who has since earned a

944tiotutt Conference on Corrections & Higher Eittcatiim

masters degree. At least four ofthe program's graduates havegone on to become teachers,passing on the precious gift ofknowledge to a new generation.Probably the most interestingsuccess story of suchprogramming is that of a formerdeath row inmate who rose to thedirectorship of a Sta te .msindustry department (Burkhad,1988).

ACCOUNTING FOR THECHANGE

To account for the "change" thatmanifests itself in released PSCEparticipants socially positivebehavior, Parlett (1981) observes"there are strong indications thateducation at an advanced levelchanges subjects to a more analyticmode of perception and inaddition accelerates moraldevelopment." Pendleton (1988)suggests that "there is a cognitivedynamic at work which lendsitself to 'rehabilitation' andincreased self-actualization."

It is this locus of students'cognitive development,apparently emanating from theirinvolvement in PSCEprogramming, where Duguid(1981), Baker (1986)and Pendleton(1988) suggest the change or"rehabilitation" is proposed tooccur. Their reasoning issupported by the theorem that"cognitive education or revisionof certain deficiencies in thinkingis believed by some to provide ameans of correcting criminalbehavior (Volpe et al., 1985). Thiscognitive development, Cropley(1977) explains, involves a"systematic reinterpretation andreorganiza tion of the informa tionthat is received as a result ofinteraction with theenvironment," and there are fewother environments that are as

20

24;

cognitively challenging as acollege classroom, whetherbehind barred windows or ivycovered halls. Moreover,according to Farnsworth (1974),an individual who has obtainedan operational level of cognitivedevelopment is one with a"productive personality," whichhe defines as:

. . . an individual withcognitive skills, a clear senseof identity and self-esteem,and the ability to deal withambiguity, uncertainty, andcomplexity together with thestrength and courage to makedecisions. He almost alwayshas a highly developedinternal value system whichcommits him to afundamental integrity in hisown behavior and inherentrespect and esteem for others.

It is by emphasizing thisdevelopmental process within theindividual of the nuances ofperception (cognition), the forteof liberal arts (PSCE) education(Woditsch, Schlesinger andGiardia, 1987), that the change or"resocialization" of the prisonermanifests itself. As cognitiveability increases, so does self-esteemand thusPendleton,(1988)reports, the individual acquiresan enhanced possibility of self-actualization.. AsClark(1970)hasexplained: "The end sought byrehabilitation is a stableindividual returned tocommunity life, capable ofconstructive participation andincapableof crime." It isby virtueof this internal developmentprocess of cognitive abilities thatPost-Secondary CorrectionalEducation works in addressingrecidi vism behavior and yieldingeconomically functionaladultsforsociety.

Nittiortal Confertrut on Corrutkms de gfigkir Slur Agog

PROGRAM FUNDING ANDECONOMIC VIABILITY

At the beginning of the 80's, therewere over 350 PSCE programsacross the country with 27,000(less than 9 percent of the thennational penal population)inmate-students enrolled(Littlefield and Wolford, 1982).Ryan and Woodard (1987)reported that 91 percent of thestates offered some form of PSCEopportunities to their penalpopulations.

Funding for PSCE programsvaries from state to state, and thusit is impossible to provide anationally oriented fundingschematic. Littlefield andWolford (1982), in order ofapproximate prominence, foundthat PSCE financing is comprisedof: (1) federal Pell grants, (2) statestudent aid grants, (3) veteransbenefits, (4) correctionaleduca tion budgets, (5) individualstudent payments, (6) funds fromthe sponsoring school. From acorrectional-managementvantage, these programsrepresent an extremely cost-effective method of efficientlyproviding correctionalprogramming for numbers ofoffenders in their institutions.

The economic viability of PSCEprogramming becomes apparentwhen reviewed through a cost-analysis method. On average, thecost of a baccalaureate degree fora prisoner from a state supportedschool, is in the $10,000 range(Taylor, 1989). By comparison,the same degree earned "on-campus" incurs a total educationand housing expense of $50,000(Dillingham, 1990).Correspondingly, the annual$25,000 expense of housing aprisoner is incurred whether theinmate vegetates or educates

him/herself during the length oftheir sentence. Moreover, theeducation is being purchased at a"discount" rate since the inmate-student is already "housed" in aninstitution, albeit, dorms withbars. Thus, for ten percent of thecost of one year of incarceration,one year of PSCE programmingcart be purchased. If suchprogramming is continued forfour years, according to thestatistics, society will more thanlikely receive a prisoner whoserecidivism rate will be in the lowdouble-or single-digi t percentagerange. Ifleft uneducated, the sameprisoner stands a two-thirdschance of returning again to thepenitentiary at society's cost andloss.

CONCLUSION

As Duguid (1987) observes, Post-Second ary CorrectionalEducation isnot being .0. voca tedas a panacea for the entirecorrectional morass ofovercrowding and highrecidivism rates facing the nation.Not all inmates will qualify for orbe interested in suchprogramming opportunities;however, such programmingdemonstrates that if available itcan effectively and efficientlyrehabilitate a significant portionof participants. Chase andDickover (1985) commenting onthe Folsom Program now:

"Finally, it seems evident that thepublic, whose tax dollars on boththe stateand federal level supportthis program, ha ve realized a highreturn on (their) investment." TheState's fiduciary responsibility toits citizens behooves it to providesuch programming opportuni ties,ones that assist in realizing thepublic's mandate of correctionalrehabilitation. It is evident thatPost-Secondary Correctional

21

Education effectively andefficiently assists in achieving thisgoal.

REFERENCES

Barker, E. (1986) 'The Liberal Arts in the CorrectionalSetting: Education Befitting Free Menfor ThoseWho Are Not Presently Free." Paper presented at the1986 C.E.A. Conference in Cincinnati.

Barrett, K. and Greene, K. (1989) 'Prisons the PunishingCosts," Financial World. (April 18) : 18-24.

Beck, A. and Shipley, B. (1987) "Recidivism of YoungParolees." U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau ofJustice Statistics: NCJ-104916.

Blackburn, F.(1979) 'The relationship between recidivismand participation in community college associate ofarts degree program for incarcerated offenders." Ed.D. Dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute andState University.

Burkhead, J. (1988) "FACT SHEET CorrectionsProgram." The College of Santa Fe, Albuquerque,N.M.

Chase, I. a nd Dickover, H. 91983) "University Education atFolsom Prison: An Evaluation." Journal of CorrectionalEducation (September): 92-95.

Clark, R. (1970) Crime in America. New York: Simon andSchuster.

Cropely, A. (1977) AjyciologicalAnalysis. New York: Pergaman Press.

Dash, S. (1988) "Criminal Justice in Crisis." American BarAssociation of Criminal Justice's Special Committeeon Criminal Justice in a Free Society. (December 1).

Dillingham, S. (1990) "College Guide Touts the BetterGuys." Insight. (September 10): 47.

DiIulio, J. (1991) No Escape. U.S.A. Basic Books.

Doble, J. (1987) Crime and Punishment: The Public'sView. The Public Agenda Foundation (June).

Duguid, S. (1981) "Rehabilitation Through Education: ACanadian Model." In Lucian Morian (eds.), PrisonEducation. Ottawa Canada: Canadian PublishingCentre: ISBN 0-660-11051-2.

Duguid, S. (1987) University Prison Education in BrithishColumbia. Prison Education Program Simon FraserUniversity, Burnaby, B.C.

Farnsworth, D. (1974) "Social Value in College andUniversity." Daedalus. (Fall): 299-301.

22

National Confer/me on Conctions 94gker Education

Gaither, C. (1980) "An Evaluation of the Texas Departmentof Correction? Junior College Program." NortheastLouisiana University. (May).

Gleckman, H. (1989) "Stretched Thin: Strapped for Cash,States Face Tough Choice." Dusiness Week. (June 5)89-90.

Greenfeld, L. (1985) "Examining Recidivism." U.S.Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics:NCJ-96501.

Holloway, J. and Moke, D. (1986) "Post-SecondaryCorrectional Education: An Evaluation of ParolePerformance." Wilmington College, OH. (May).

Jacoby, J. and Dunn, C. (1987) "National Survey onPunishment for Criminal Offenses, ExecutiveSummary." Source Book of Criminal lustice Statistics1988. Department ofJustice,BureauofJusticeStatistics:NJC-118318.

Littlefield, J. (1990) 'The Ohio Intake Population andCorrectional Education." In Stephen Duguid (eds.)y_rbook of Correctional Education. Burnaby, B.C.Institute for the Humanities, Simon Fraser University.

Parlett, T. (1981) 'The Benefits of Advanced Education inPrisons." In Lucian Morian (eds.), On PrisonEducation. Ottawa, Canada: Canadian PublishingCentre, ISBN-0-660-11-51-2.

Pendleton, E. (1988) "Student-Centered Instruction: APrison Modc' for Building Self-Esteem." Journal ofCorrectional ucation. (June): 82-84.

Quinney, D. (1979) Criminology. 2nd ed. Boston: LittleBrown & Company.

Ralston, C. (1989) "Poor Return on Prison Investment."Terre Haute Tribune Star. (May 24).

Roberts, J. (1992) "American Attitudes About Punishment:Myth and Reality." Overcrowded Times. (April): 1,8-10, 13.

Ryan, T. and Woodard, T. (1987) Correctional Education:A State of the Art Analysis. U.S. Department ofJustice, National Institute of Corrections. (July).

Skelton, D. (1989) "The Crisis in Corrections: Where DoWe Put The People Nobody Wants?" The IndianaSheriff. (Fall): 3-5, 12, 16.

Taylor, J. (1989) "The Economics of EducationalRehabilitation." Journal of Prisoners on Prisons. (Fall):57-63.

26

Notionat Conferma on Corrections & Nigher 'Education

Ticer, S. (1989) "The Search for Ways To Break Out of thePrison Crisis." Business Week. (May): 80-81.

Thomas, F. (1974) "Narrative Evaluation Report on theInstitute for: Educational Media Technology."Burlington County College, NJ.

Thompson, J. (1976) "Report on Follow-up/EvaluationSurvey of irwmer Inmate Students of Alexander CityState Jurior College."

Alexander City State Junior College, AL. (July).

Thorpe, T., MacDonald, D. and Gerald, B. (1984) "Follow-up Study of Offenders Who Earned College DegreesWhile Incarcerated in New York State." journal ofCorrectional Education. (September): 86-88.

Volpe, R. et al. (1985) "Cognitive Education in FourCanadian Prisons." journal of Correctional Education.Vol. 36: 6674.

William, E. (1989) "The Promise of Better Prisons at LowerCosts." Heritage Features Syndicate. (March 29).

Woditsch, G.,Schlesinger, M. and Giardina, R. (1987) 'TheSkillful Baccalaureate." Change. (November/December): 48-57.

Wolf, J. and Sylves, D. (1981) 'The Impact of HigherEducation Opportunity Programs: Past PrisonExperience of Disadvantaged Students: A PreliminaryFollow-up of HEOP Ex-Offenders." Albany, N.Y.

Zawitz, M. et al. (1992) "Bureau of Justice StatisticsNational Update." U.S. Department of Justice.(January): NCJ-133097.

-(1983) "Learning Maketh the Honest Man." PsychologyToday. (April): 77.

-(1988) 'Profile of Inmates 1986." U.S. Department ofJustice, Bureau of Justice Statistics: NCJ-109926.

41989) B.1.$. Data Report. 1988. U.S. Department ofJustice, Bureau of Justice Statistics: NCJ-116262.

-(1990) B.I.S. Data Report, 1989. U.S. Department ofJustice, Bureau of Justice Statistics: NCJ-121514.

-(1990) Lorton Prison College Program-Annual Report.Division of Continuing Education, University of theDistrict of Columbia. (November).

-(1992) "Analysis of Return Ra the Inmate CollegeProgram Participants." CE, 'Nlews &Notes. (January):10-11.

-(1992) "U.S. Supreme Court Opens Door to Modificationof Consent Decrees." Corrections Forum. (March-April): 2-3.

23

2.7

Notional Conference on Corrections & Higher Education

THE BACONE COLLEGE/OKLAHOMADEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS ON-SITE

POST SECONDARY EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM

The program currently beingimplemented by the OklahomaDepartment of Corrections andBaconeCollege isone which works,and works well.

To provide a historical overview,initial discussion began in thesummer of 1989 as a result of aDOC mandate restricting off-siteeducational programs. Feeling theneed to provide educationalprograms beyond the secondarylevel, and lacking the capability forsatellite programs, Wardens MikeCody of Jess Dunn CorrectionalCenter and Joy Had wiger of EddieWarrior Correctional Centercontacted Bacone about thepossibility of providing an on-siteeducational program for theirfacility. After discussing mutualneeds and examining severaloptions, requirements for inmateparticipation were establ i shed. Thecriteria selected for involvementcreated as a result of several falsesteps and errors. We mustemphasize that this is not a staticlist and will continue tobe mod i fiedas problem areas are idenii fied andsolutions found.

1. Inmates must berecommended by their casemanager and approved by thefacility principal.

2. Inmates must meet Baconeeligibility requirements:a. be a high school graduate

or have a GEDb. take and pass Bacone

entrance tests

C.

d.

byDave Norfolk

not be in default of astudent loan or indebtedto any educationalinsti tutionprovide copies of theirhigh school transcriptsand/or GED scores, and,if applicable, collegetranscripts.

3. Inmates must apply and beeligible for PELL Grant.

4. Once accepted, inmates will begiven a job classification of-Bacone studen t," subject to therequirements a ndresponsibilities of any DOC jobclassification.

5. Once the semester begins,inmates will be required tocomplete the semester,disciplinary problems beingthe only exception.

6. All classes provid ed by Baconemust be of college level and betransferable to any college oruniversity within the state ofOklahoma.

7. All transcripts will be ofstandard Bacone issue, withno indication that they weretaken at a state institution.

8. All faculty used must becurrent Bacone faculty, courserequirements the same as oncampus, and performanceexpectations identical.

9. Curriculum is designed toprovide art AA degree ingeneral studies, with anemphasis on the humanities.

10. A predetermined revolvingschedule has been designed

24

P,8

providing 6 separate entryopportunities.

11. Program length is 5 semesters(12 hours/semester) and totals62 credit hours. Inmates musttake at least 6 hours, but nomore than 12.

12. Texts will be provided byBacone College on a loan basisand must be returned at theend of each semester. Suppliesare the responsibility of theinmate.

13. Inmates must earn a GPA of2.00 (on a 4.0 scale) eachsemester, earn no grade lowerthan a C to maintainguaranteed involvement in theprogram by DOC, and mustmaintain regular collegeeligibility as determined byBacone.

14. Documentation of inmateacademic progress will beprovided to JDCC by BaconeCollege every four weeks.

15. Inmates have the option to stopor continue at the end of eachsemester.

To avoid added paperwork andjob changes, participants arerequired to take a PhysicalEducation class in the summer.Tutoring classes in English andAlgebra areavailable for those whoneed assistance, or for those facingAlgebra, Comp. I or Comp. II thefollowing semester.

For those not meeting Oklahomahigh school college entrancerequirements,anacknowledgment

Vaasa( Conference on Corrections & gligio Education

waiver must be signed. This waiverindicates understanding that highschool deficiencies must be madeup if the inmate wishes to receive adiploma. (In conjunction with theDOC Chapter II program, we arecurrently devising a summercurriculum designed to make upthese deficiencies.)

The initial group of twelve (12) hasgown to thirty (30) and in the pastyear, the program has beenimplemented at the Eddie WarriorCorrectional Center (a women'sfacility) where enrollment hasalreadygrown to 30. Lastsemester,the GPA at both facilities was 3.12and 3.28 respectively. Inmates atother facilities are requestingtransfers to both JDCC and EWCCso that they can participate in thisprogram, and discussion isunderway about beginni ng similarprograms at other regional DOCsites.

This past spring we graduated ourfirst student, Ron Brooks, whocompleted his program wi th a GPAexceeding 325! Three females and

one male participants remained atBacbne upon release and severalothers have transferred to othercolleges or are in the proce% ofdoing so when released. Ourdmpout rate for reasonsother thandisciplinary or release is less thanour campus rate (12 percent vs. 38percent) while our stopout rate is amere 2 percent.

There can be little doubt that thisprogram has great intrinsic meritfor the Department of Corrections.It is providing a cost free, qualityeducational program to both DOCand its constituents. Secondly, it isproviding a post secondaryexperience to those who have thedesireand capability to utilize it. Itis giving those "long termers"something that will enhance theirproductivity Upon release, andgiving "short termers" aneducational head start. All of thisis provided by an experienced,certified faculty,andcredentializedby a North Central accreditedcollege.

25PO

Extrinsic gains lie mostly in theaffective domain. This program isoffering to those whose academicbackgrounds have been less thansatisfying, an opportunity for a newstart free of any pre-incarcerationprejudice or pre-judgement. Theinterpersonal skills required in alive classroom are unattainable inany other for mat, and are virtualtraining laboratories for the skillsrequired to survive in society.

A determination to "make it work"must permeate the program fromits inception. Those involved mustbe dedicated to this goal, and thetime required to solve problemsmust be given to the program andthe inmates who participate.Sensitivity to their needs, qualitysupport and counseling, andconstant reinforcement arerequisites for their success. If theseinterests and roles are assumed byall, satisfactory results and arewarding experience will begained by all.

National Conference on Correaions & Alger Education

The Correctional Practicum: Invitational Educationin Participation, Self-awareness & Professionalism

This article was written tointroduce the correctionalpracticum concept to educatorsand correctional administratorsand to provide basic instructionon how to develop a practicum inone's curriculum.

"Nobody said it would be likethis." This is not an uncommonlamentof new correctionsofficersas they realize that "the idealizedexpectat;on of their chosen careerdoes not match the reality" (Mills,1990).

Previous research on the structureof public attitude towardcorrections has shown that it is"diverse, multici*-,-ensional andcomplex" (Cullen et al., 1989).This characterization would alsoappear applicable to the studentspursuing careers in corrections,even after completing fiverequired classes. Studentsreported that they sawmaintaining orderasa core featureof the correctional officer role,harbored some negative attitudestowards inmates, but lacked aclear understanding of the dutiesand responsibilities of theprofessional corrections officers.Students have read and heardtime and again what correctionsofficers should do. Much lesshavetheybeen told what those officersshould not do. "Progress,"according to Chief ProbationOfficer J.P. Murphy, "is

byF. Lantarr Crowe

John Zappala

encouraged only when learnedwhat should be avoided ordiscarded. More and more, weneed the guidance found in thereports or expressions of practicalworkers whose struggles tochange patterns, control andinspire prisoners have bornefruitful results. Theseaccomplishments and processesmake up the body of knowledgeand skills which should be a partof the professional training andpersonality equipment" (1987) ofevery corrections officer.

These data lent support to theimplementation of an eighty hour(five semester credits) practicumcourse in the Corrections OfficersTraining Program at MidMichigan Community College in1989. One of the purposes of thismonograph is to outline thedevelopt-noitandimpleinentationofthis curriculum component at thecommunity college level.

THE FIRST STEP: DOINGTHE HOMEWORK

Developing a practicumexperience in the Criminal Justicecurriculum is a relatively newinnovation, at the communitycollege level, and in order to beeffective it must take into accountthe characteristics of (1) cthersuccessful programs and (2) thecharacteristics of its programparticipant.

26

In response to the firstcharacteristic, a systematic focusof other superior programs wasinitiated. Programs werereviewed that met the followingrequirements:

1. Strong emphasis on a strictadherence to fundamentalinstitutional regulationsand security requirements.

2. Positive evaluations from allparticipants in the program,including those from thecorrectional institution.

In an effort to address theconcernsof the practicum participant, theprogram had to:

1. Be accessible to the student.2. Promote flexible scheduling.3. Facilitateinteractionbetween

the community college, thecorrectional facility, and theintern.

THE NEXT STEP:DEVELOPING

INSUTUTIONAL SUPPORT

Establishing a new course at MidMichigan Community College isas much a "paper business" as itis a "people Business" (Mills,1990). Knowing that the conceptwould need to be approved by acurriculum council, it wasprudent to develop immediatesupport from faculty and other

%fissional' Conference on Corrections el/ Nigher 'Education

administrators. Specifically, theirrecommendations and opinionsfor course development weresolicited. Italso helps to anticipatethe litany of questions that wouldsurface such as:

1. Just what is it that thepracticum is expected toaccomplish?

2. Will this program encourageexcellence and provide amaximum opportunity forstudents to develop?

3. Will students be challengedto achieve to the maximum oftheir abilities?

4. Will the success in theacarlemic setting translate tothe work environment?

5. Does the training programhave measurableperformance objectives foreach kasson plan?

6. Is the practicum syllabussufficiently detailed to beused by others?

7. Will the practicum maintainaccurate individual trainingrecords for each participant?

8. How will the practicumevaluate its effectiveness andmake changes to improve thelearning process for trainees?

STEP THREE: THE QUESTFOR CHAMPIONS

Often in corrections, the terms"firmand fair are used to describewhat an officer'sbehavior towardoffenders should be" (Gilbert,1986). Thesamedescriptorsapplyto the practicum programcoordinators' behavior towardsstudents. Mid MichiganCommunity College wasfortunate to obtain thecooperation of two keyindividuals who facilitatedparticipants' success.

THE PROGRAMCOORDINATOR

The assumption that individualscan 1.e trained to becomeprofessionals appears in much ofthe related literature. In additionto offering basic job preparation,higher education shares in theresponsibility of developingvalues and beliefs in its students(Saltzman,1986). For that reason,the college hired a professionalprogram coordinator to assiststudents in bridging the gapbetween "what they learned inthe classroom, and the way we doit here" (Cheatwood andHayeslip, 1986). Essentially, thecoordinator outlined the students'responsibilitiesand expectations,served as a liaison between thecorrectional facility and thecollege, and developed a supportgroup structure for the group ofpracticum participants. Thedevelopment of the support groupwas perhaps the most importantin that many students oftenappeared to lack sufficientreadiness to handle difficult andpotentially dangerous situations.This programcoordinator-facultymember, wanted his students tobe mentally, emotionally andintellectually prepared for theirfield work.

THE CORRECTIONALINSTITUTIONFACILITATOR

If training practicums are to beuseful in the real world of thecorrectional institution, itbehooves the student to developa cooperative relationship with akeyindividual on site What betterresource could be called upon tohelp our students learn theprocesses of mutual cooperation,communication, and leadershipthen a representative of thecorrectional facility?

27

Consequently, the AssistantDeputy Warden volunteered toassist our participants indeveloping: 1) performanceresponsibilities; 2) procedures forcarryingout these responsibilities;3) practical skills for performingthese tasks; and 4) theexpectationsof individuals that supervisethem.

STEP FOUR: BEHIND THESCENES

Leaving thecollege classroom andventuring into the world ofcorrections can be a very exciting,yet apprehensive step for thestudent. This non-traditionalapproach allows the student toapply correctional conceptslearned in the classroom in theother classroom the correctionalinstitution. As Duley (1980)suggests, the student will beintroduced to the work place andthe circumstances of reality.

The Corrections practicum is anintegrative process. Not only isthere the challenge of applyingclassroom theory to field practice,but also involved is the student'sneed for increased self awarenessand the development ofprofessional skills.

Before the student is allowed toparticipate, legal ramifications ofoff-campus classes must beaddressed. Being in a correctionalsetting can be viewed as apotentially high-risk anddangerous placement. It istherefore instrumental that aliability clause be signed by thestudent. This form is one ofseveral that should be completedby the student and the internshipagency. Black (1987) states thatthese forms may not preventfuture legal action, but theyindicate a mutual understandingof potential risks involved inplacement.

31

While at the practicum setting,the student will be instrumentalin cartying out the goals of thecorrectional facility. Perrow(1961) identifies both official andoperative goals. Official goals aredefined as the basic purposes ofthe institution as cited by statute,policy and procedure manuals.On the other hand, operativegoalsreflect human relations,cooperation and availableresources. The practicum studentwill become very much aware ofboth.

While at the "correctionalclassroom," the student will be aparticipant-observer. This meansthat the student will be studyingthe correctional environment, itsstaff, inmates and every dayevents and situations. AsJorgenson (1989) describes thestudent as participant-observer.

The methodology ofparticipant observation isappropriate for studies ofalmost every aspect of humanexistence. Throughparticipant observation, it ispossible to describe what goeson, who or what is involved,when and where thingshappen, how they occur andwhyat least from thestandpoint of participantsthings happen as they do inparticular situations. Themethodology of participantobservation is exceptional forstudying processes,relationships, among peopleand events, the organizationof people and events,continuities over time, andpatterns, as well as theimmediate socioculturalcontexts in which humanexistence unfolds.

While at the institutional setting,the practicum student will be able

9(ational Conference on Comctions 9(igher Education

to measure the agency's efficiencyand effectiveness. According toHall (1977) "effectiveness is thedegree to which an agency realizesits goals, while efficiency is theamount of resources used toptoduce a unit of output." Thus,the student should be able to seehow efficient the agency runs andif it is effective as well.

THE FINAL STEY

Bringing the students back to theclassroom was an integral part ofthe student's support system.Meeting weekly to discussfeelings and experiences with apeer group expanded the learningexperience and provided abroader perspective of theagency.The program coordinator wouldalso discuss such topical issues aspolitical, socioeconomic and legalissues; ethical standards; formaland informal structures; andcorrectional goals and standards.

The student was assisted inassessing his own individualexperiences as well as careerplanning. A written assignmentdealing with correctional policyor an incident report was dueweekly and turned in forgrading.A final report was also assignedwhich summarized the entirepracticum experience includingstudent expectations, feelings,experiences, evaluations, andrelated comments.

CONCLUSION

It was through the combinationof these components that enabledMid Michigan CommunityCollege's Corrections Officers'Training Program to evolve as itcurrently exists. Inherent in theprogram's success is the ongoingneed to assess learner outcomes.Specifically, the program plannercan achieve that by: 1? developing

28 3 2

clear and concise writtenstatements of intended learningoutcomes; 2) sequencing learningoutcomes so that learners are ableto recognize their progress towardachieving the stated learningoutcomes; 3) ensuring thatprogram content, instructionalmaterials and delivery processesare relevant and timely forachieving intended learningoutcomes; (Incidentally, 75percent of our program studentshave been placed in correctional-related employment.); and 4)evaluating the learner'sperformances in terms of intendedlearning outcomes.

After the Correctional Practicumit is believed that the student, ifnot better prepared for a career incorrections, was at least able toanswer that question, "Is thisreally for me?"

Nutiotat Confervia o Corrtaions & gligkaEducation

REFERENCES

Black, D. (1987). "The legal insandoutsof internship."Perspective: The Campu s Levi Monthly,Vol. 2,

p. 12.

Cheatwood, D. and Hayeslip, D.W. (1986)."Reasonable expectations in correctional officertraining: matchingmethods to audience." Issuesin Correctional Training and Casework, p. 15-

18.

Cullen, F.T., Lutze, F.E., Lunk, B.G., and Wolfe, N.T.(1989). "The corrections orientation of prisonguards: Do officers support rehabilitation?"Federal Probation, L111, p. 33-40.

Duley, J.S. (1980). "Learning through fieldexperience." In 0. Milton and Associates. Qncollege teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass,

1980.

Felkenes, G.T. (1987). "Criminal justice doctorateeducation: Some observations on studentexpectations. Journal of Criminal Iustice, 15, p.

145-156.

Gilbert, M.J. (1986). "The challenge ofprofessionalism in correctional training." Issuesin Correctional Training and Casework, p. 4-10.

Hall, R.H. (1977). Organizational structure andprocess. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Jorgensen, D.L. (1989). Participant observation: Amethodolgogy for human studies. NewburyPark, CA: Sage Publications.

Lewis, J. (1986). "A new perspective in correctionaltraining." Issues in Correctional Training andCasework, p. 12-17.

Mills, D.K. (1990). "Career issues for probationofficers." Federal Probation, LIV, p. 3-7.

Murphy, J.P. (1987). "Some axioms for probationofficers." Federal Probation, LI, p. 20-24.

Perrow, C. (1961). "The analysisof goals in complexorganizations." American Sociological Review.

Vol. 26, p. 855.

Rogers, R. (1991). "The effects of educational levelon correctional officerjob satisfaction." Journalof Criminal Justice, 19, p. 123-137.

Saltzman, LE. (1986). "The feasibility of teachingprofessionalism in criminal justice." Teaching

Sociology, 14, P. 263-265.

293 ,r3

Ncltiond Confe rate e on Corrections & Styria Education

WAIVER OF LIABILITY

Each Corrections student realizes the potential hazard of the field internship experience. The studentnevertheless agrees to waive all claims of liability against the program coordinator and staff, Mid MichiganCommunity College, and the sponsoring internship agency.

Date Student Signature

Mid Michigan Community CollegeHarrison, Michigan

Corrections Officer Training Program

STUDENT'S INTERNSHIP PROGRAM AGREEMENT FORM

The Field Internship is a 5 credit hour course completed entirely in the field with a minimum of 50 hours ofplacement with an operational corrections agency. In addition, four orientation meetings will be required.At least one-on-site visit will be arranged by the program coordinator.

The intern will be responsible for completing daily log sheets, eight administrative/incident reports and afinal report.

All placements must be approved by theprogram coordinator. The Internship work experience is the productof a mutual agreement between Mid Michigan Community College and outside cooperating correctionalagencies to provide students with both practical and educational experience.

I have read this agreement form on the operation of the Internship Program at Mid Michigan CommunityCollege and agree to abide by all conditions stated therein.

Date Student Signature

Mid Michigan Community CollegeContinuing Education OfficeHarrison, Michigan(TX - 517/386-7792)Corrections Officer Training Program

30

Notiond Conference on Corrections er gfig fur Education

AGENCY AGREEMENT FORM

Agency

Address

Telephone Zip Code

Please be advised that the above identified agency agrees to accept

Mr./Ms. as a Student Intern for the

following time period

During the student's internship assignment, the contact person within our agency will be

Name

Position

Telephone

Dai? Signature of Administrator & Title

Mid Michigan Community CollegeHarrison, Michigan

31

Notiond Conference on Con-evil:fru & Higfur Education

INTERNSIIIPICIEMILE

Student Name Student Number

Agency Name

Address

Telephone Number (

Coriact Person

Telephone/Ext. # (

This is a schedule of my internship program.

DATES TIME

Week 1

Week 2

Week 3

Week 4

Week 5

Week 6

Week 7

Week 8

Week 9

Internship Phone # (

Residence Phone # (

Mid Michigan Community CollegeHarrison, Michigan 48625-9447

Corrections Certification ProgramContinuing Education Office(517) 386-7792

32

36

946ttional Conference on Corrections & Htgher Education

INTERNSHIP PLACEMINT FORM

Student Name

Student Number D.O.B. Age

Race/Sex Height/Weight

Michigan Driver's License Number

Social Security Number

Home Address

Home Phone (

Work Phone (

Contact Person(parent, spouse, friend)

Telephone Number ( )

Interests

Comments

Mid Michigan Community College

3 733

Notional. Conference on Corrections Nigher Education

CORRECTIONS ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT

Student's Name Agency

Date Trainer's Signature

Report #

Subject of the Report

NARRATIVE

STUDENT INTERNSHIP EVALUATION

Student Name

Agency

Address

Period Covered: From To

Please evaluate the intern by circling the appropriate number below. (No. 5 being the highest.) Also, pleasewrite brief comments regarding the student's performance with your agency.

Unknown

Appearance 5 4 3 2 1

General Attitude 5 4 3 2 1

Interest 5 4 3 2 1

Relations with Others 5 4 3 2 1

Accepting Responsibility 5 4 3 2 1

Punctuality 5 4 3 2 1

Reports 5 4 3 2 1

Potentialities 5 4 3 2 1

General Conduct 5 4 3 2 1

Comments:

Rated bySignature Title

34

3

National Conference on Corrections CY Nigher Education

PUBLIC SAFETY AND JUSTICE CAREERS: AVIRGINIA UNIVERSITY'S PROGRAM FOR

PROFESSIONALISM

bY

Paul W. Keve

The worlds of academe and of operational agencies often remain aloof, but no: ifthey are to achieve their potential for

excelknce. In some heartening instances they find a symbiotic bond that gives mew vitality to both, a bond that just might

be found between one VCLI department and several governmental agencies in Virginia. For here is a faculty group doing

research on drugabuse issues, on juvenile delinquency and a wide range of risk control subjects. At the same time it is using

the knowledge gained for offering institutes for the education of managers in fields of highway safety, police corrections, or

other regulatory agencies.

It is a IICU department with a relatively recent and dynamic academic program, surely making an in:portant place for itself

in serving government agencies that until recent years had felt little kinship with higher education. The Department of

Justice and Risk Administration is making its presence felt wherever criminaljustice and regulatory agencies are coping

with increasingly complex social, technical, and legal problems. Its development here to be told is rooted in significant social

conditions of the country' s recent past.

INTRODUCTION

While Chief Justice Earl Warrenwas in office he had occasion tospeak at a conference of criminaljustice careerists on the subject ofprofessional training for theirwork. He related the story of anold friend, a former top official inthe San Francisco PoliceDepartment, who had once toldhim what it had been like to startwork as a police officer in his day.When he was appointed,sometime early in the century, hereported to workentirely ignorantof the duties and conduct of thejob, was handed a badge and agun and sworn in. His beat waspointed out to him on a wall mapand without further instructionhe was sent out to enforce the lawin that area. Just like that, on hisfirst day, he was a police officer.

But it was not that easy; after afew days of walking his beat thisnew officer yearned for some

instruction and advice, so he wentto ask for help from a veteranpolice officer he knew. He foundhis friend, though wellexperienced, wholly unpreparedto formulate any usefulinstruction except to say, "Wellson, always take good care of yourfeet."

It was a day when policedepartments were intenselypolitical, with new officers hiredthrough political preferment, andwith a resultant absence of anyvestige of professionalism. (Asan extreme example of this, thecityof Indianapolis forawhilehadtwo police departments: oneRepublican and one Democrat.)Such conditions inevitably left thepolice with low public esteem.When the New York City mayorin 1904 persuaded a man ofintegrity and prestige to takeoveras police commissioner hisreluctant appointee was appalledat the prospect of entering such

35

30

an unsavory world. He laterwrote, "I must confess it was witha heavy heart that I turned myface towards that antique andshabby palace, the sepulchre ofreputation, tha t tomb of character,that morgue of political ambition,that cavern of intrigue anddissimulation the PoliceHeadquarters" (McAdoo, 1906).

UNCERTAIN BEGINNINGSIN VIRGINIA

Though Virginia police agenciesescaped someof the worst aspectsof political intrigue, they sharedthe general condi tion of uncertaincompetence stemming from anabsence of any special educationor training. Until the City ofRichmond acquired the Mosquearound 1940, there was no pre-service training for its policeofficers beyond the arrangementfor a new officer to tagalong withan experienced officer forwhatever seemed a suitable

period of time. Certain that thepolice precinct stations hadbasement firing ranges where newofficers were given basicinstruction and after the Mosquewas acquired, all the weaponsfiring practice was centralized ina firing range adapted from ihbowling alley. A few hours ofclassroom instruction werestarted at the same time.

For police agencies state-wide amodest beginning in training hadbeen inaugurated in the early1930's through the joint efforts ofthe Virginia Municipal Leagueand the Virginia Association ofChiefs of Police. That program,starting in 1932, received financialhelp from the State Departmentof Education and employed acaptain from the New York StatePolice to manage the training. Thestate was divided into 20 zoneswithin which training programswere offered, and each policeagency was invited to send oneofficer to receive instruction onhow to train the officers in hisagency. At first this training wasjust a one-week course; and asthese new instructors, thusprepared, returned to their homedepartments, they had topersuade the officers there toattend training classes on theirown time. Eventually the trainingperiods were expanded to threeweeks, and the instruction for theRichmond area officers waslocated in space lent by theUniversity of Richmond. Stilllater, with instructors borrowedfrom the FBI, the training wasmoved to the State PoliceHeadquarters.

Commendable as this seemed, thetraining supplied through theseyears was only for a selected fewpolice officers and was not actualpre-service training. It was notuntil 1955 that the first training

National.Conference on Corrections er Highti 'Education

class for all new Richmond policerecruits wasestablished, and thenthe length of the course was onlyone week. Within two years thishad been expanded to a period oftwo weeks,

CORRECTIONS AND THEJUDICIARY DISCOVER

TRAINING

In general the country's slownessto supply training for police waspartly a matter of the public'sreluctance to finance the cost, butpartly also a resistance by the rankand file of police who saw noneed for it. Nor were the policealone in this tendency, for theirinclinations were well matchedby other components of thecriminal justice system.Corrections workers, too, whetherprison guards or probation orparole officers, were in mostjurisdictions expected to startwork with no more training thanmight be gained by a few days ofwatch ing a nother person at work,a process that was often a matterof the bad habits of one generationbeing passed to the next. Amongboth police and correctionspersonnel there had long been akind of mach3 pride in havinglearned their jobs in the wellknown school of hard knocks,augmented by a ready contemptfor "book learning."

Even the judiciary was inclined todeny itself training, an aspect ofits determination to preserve theindependence of each judge'sdecision-making role. A projectwhich served as an ice-breakerfor judicial training appeared inPittsburgh in the late 1950's wherethe juvenile court judge obtaineda foundation grant to financeseveral training seminars forinvited judges of other juvenilecourts. The time was ripe, theresponse was positive, and the

36

40

idea began to infect the judiciaryin general. In 1961 a series ofjudicial seminars was conductednationwide, and by the next yeara three-year training project forjudges was started with a grantfrom the National Instituie ofMental Health (Clark, 1964). Indue course this settled into apermanent training program forjuvenile court judges. Judges ofother courts caught the idea; andin July 1964 a new entity, theNational College of State TrialJudges, convened its first trainingsession with over 100 judgespresent at the University ofColorado. This, too, became apermanent program, soon movedto its own building at theUniversity of Nevada.

Meanwhile police agenries,stimulated by the prestige of theFBI and its training academy atQuantico, Virginia, graduallydeveloped more appreciation fortechnical, professional training.When a police chief's certificatefrom the FBI Academy became aprized status credential this hadits natural effect in makingtraining desirable. Chief JusticeWarren Burger pointed out thiseffect, commenting that " One ofthe great, and perhaps mostlasting, contributions of theFederal Bureau of Investigationwas the founding of the NationalPolice Acadeniy. ...(which gave)advanced training to thousandsof sta te and local police personnel"(Criminal Justice, 1983-84).

It becomes obvious that the focusof concern here is in both of twoparallel areas: (1) technical jobtraining by or for the criminaljustice agencies; and (2) the needfor broad academic educationwith college credit. Often it isdifficult to separate theirhistories,as both the job training and thecoltege education ideas had

3 uiagat Conference on Caructions dr Higher Education

always been neglected, if notactually scorned, until the early1960's when at last both werebeing advocated, often by thesame voices.

AUGUST VOLLMER AND AVISION OF

PROFESSIONALISM

In police work the earliest andmost effecti ve voice was longtimeBerkeley, California police chiefAugust Vollmer, who urgedprofessional job training but wasperhaps more noted for histouting oi -ge education forpolice officers. His seminalwritings on many a spects of policeprofessionalization earned himwide respect in his field until bythe end of the 1920's he becamethe acknowledged leader of amovement to establish policeschools in colleges anduniversities. In 19'31 whenVollmer became the first professorof police administration at theUniversity of California, hehelped organize the first college-level training program in thecountry at San Jose State College(Douthit, 1975).

In response to Vollmer's urging,by the early 1930's a very fewuniversities initiated curricula forstudents in law enforcement, butthe idea did not take hold moregenerally until after World War IIwhen the combination ofreturning servicemen looking forjobs and the availability of G.I.loans encouraged a rapid increasein the college offerings (Walker,1976). By this time, too, with therapid growth of high technologypermeating all aspects of society,there was certain to be a felt needfor specialized education to dealwith the imposing newtechnologies available to both thepolice and corrections fields. Newsocial pressures were having their

effect during the 1960's "A relatedseries of social crises urbanracial disorders, anti-war politicalprotest, and the emergence of awidespread drugculturethrustthe American policeman to theforefront of national attention ...

In some instances it becameapparent that the conductof policeofficers served to perpetuate andeven escalate the violence."

Until this time, andnotwithstanding the earlierurgings of Vollmer, theuniversities seemed unaware oftheir potential for service to thisfield. A pertinent comment wasmade in 1971 by one scholar wholater joined the VCU faculty incriminal justice. Heobserved that"efforts to recruit well-educatedpersonnel for service in thecorrectional field have beenhandicapped for years becausethe colleges and universities werenot interested in offering courseswhich would have as their majorgoal the preparation of studentsfor careers in corrections" (Sharp,1971). Of courseitcould bearguedthat universities would not offerthe courses if there were nodemand for them.

THE POLITICAL ARRIVALOF LAW ENFORCEMENT

TRAINING

By the early 19613's the demandwas evident, augmented byPresident Johnson's politicallyastute war on crime. WhenCongress enacted the LawEnforcement AssistanceAdministration (LEAA) in 1968,there was already a new interestin specialized education andtraining for criminal justicecareers, and so a substantialportion of the LEAA money wasallocated to education. At thattime it was evident that less thanhalf of the country's correctional

37

agencies provided any regularpre-service staff training(Corrections, 1967). Relevantcollege education was similarlyslighted. "Vollmer's idea ofhigher education for policeofficers did not take hold generallyin either colleges or policedepartments until the late 1960's"(Sherman, 1978).

The education component of theLEAA law was the LawEnforcement Education Program(LEEP), which supported adramatic increase in educationalofferings for careerists. Duringits first eight years LEEP granted$234 million for scholarships forabout 250,000 students. Its effectis seen in data gathered by theInternational Association ofChiefs of Police which counted 39baccalaureate programs in lawenforcement in 1966-67, and thenfound 376 such programs nineyears later (Sherman, 1978). Anappraisal of the involvement ofcorrections personnel in the firsteight years of LEEP was that about1,000collegesand universitieshadsupplied courses to "40,000 prisonguards and probation and paroleofficers" (Service, 1979).

With an eye to the respected FBIAcademy and its positive effecton police training, thecorrectionsfield inevitably began to think ofa similar model for correctionsprofessionals. In 1971 theDepartment of Justice sponsoreda "National Conference onCorrections" in Williamsburg,attended by about 300 invitedleaders from the corrections fieldnationwide. Among the manyrecommendations emerging fromthis meeting was one that urgedcreation of a mobile NationalAcademy "to assist with planningand leadership training withrespect to a full range ofcorrectional programs, also

coordinate with the universitytraining programs beingconducted" (LEAA Report, 1971).

When federal standards for thecorrections field were publishedin 1973 they provided that "Eachstate should establish by 1975 aState plan for coordinatingcriminal justice education toassure a sound academiccontinuum from an associate ofarts through graduate studies incriminal justice" (Corrections,1973). The State of Virginiaresponded in 1977 with its ownstatement echoing the earlierfederal goal. A task forcedeveloping the Virginia goalsstrongly urged that "educationalleaders, state planners andcriminal justice staff membersshould meet to plan academicprograms in the criminal justicefield. . . The task force also feelsstrongly that rewards should beprovided to encourage in-servicestaff to pursue educationalopportunities in the criminaljustice field." The same task forceurged similar college training forpolice officers (Report of the TaskForce, 1977).

PUBLIC SAFETYEDUCATION DISCOVERS A

CAMPUS HOME INRICHMOND

As these various currents ofescalating interest in criminaljustice education rapidlydeveloped during the 1960's theRichmond Professional Institute(RPI) of the College of Williamand Mary was already assertingits determination to offer theneeded types of educationalcourses. RPI was an obviousschool to be responsive to such aneed. Organized in 1917 as theRichmond School of Social Workand Public Health, after eightyears it surrendered its

Nuianal Confertnce on Corrutions er 54g1lerE1ucation

independence for the advantagesof being a corporate part of theCollege of William and Mary. In1939 it adopted the nameRichmond Professional Institute,which held significance regardingits academic focus; a professionalinstitute was defined as: a collegeor university which a rranges mostof the programs of study it offersaround occupations orprofessions" (Hibbs, 1973).

By the 1960's RI'l had joined thetrend of other Virginia collegesand had abandoned the racial,white-only policy al ways ineffectuntil then. It was offeringeducation for careerists in art,design, music, distributiveeducation, business, accounting,advertising, speech and drama,and others. It was ready to addthe field of law enforcement.

In 1959 Henry H. Hibbs (who hadheaded the school since its inception,retired) and RPI welcomed a newpresident, George J. Oliver. It issaid that Dr. Oliver came to aschool that was a professionalinstitute but had it well on theway to being a comprehensivecollege when he left in 1967(Hibbs, 1973). President Oliverperceived the developing interestin law enforcement education,and in 1964 he designa ted a newlyarrived professor, Carroll R.Hormachea, to develop a two-year associate degree programand to teach courses in this subjectarea.

It was not easy, of course, to findthe necessary faculty for any neweducational discipline. Over timethe educa tional program will itselfgenerate the quality ofpractitioners who will eventuallybe a pool from which to drawteachers with both education andexperience credentials. But at thestart this talent is likely to be rare,

38

42

and a look at the RPI faculty andcourses in 1964 confirms it. Inthat year a part-time instructor,L.B. Reed, was enlisted to teachthe first courses in lawenforcement. Hormachea, withhis graduate degree in sociologyand full-time status, was anappropriate choice to serve as thegeneralist in developing andcoordinating the overall program,while Reed, a former FBI agentand former police chief of KansasCity, Missouri, was typical of thevarious specialists who were usedon a part-time basis to teach intheir specific areas of expertise.

In the first few years there wasnecessarily an over-dependenceon the extremely small teachingstaff which was expanded to twofull-time people only after threeyears. The second instructor, whojoined Hormachea in 1967, wasWilliam A. Bechtel, former chiefof police for Redondo Beach,California and holder of a master'sdegree in police administration.The catalogs for the next threeyears show him loaded down withinstruction of courses in PoliceOrganization andAdministration, Introduction toLaw Enforcement, CriminalInvestiga tion, Criminal Procedureand Evidence, and TrafficPlanning and Management.

To round out the curriculum therewere "borrowed" instructors suchasJohn Velier, chief of the campuspolice, who started the subjectarea of industrial security;Michael Morchower, an attorneyand former FBI agent who taughtforensic science; MartinChoworowsky from the sociologydepartment who taught police-community relations (HormacheaInterview).

Although the LEAA and LEEPprograms did not appear until

Niational Conferrna on Coinctions dr Nig fttr Education

1968, there was a predecessoragency, the Office of LawEnforcement Administration(OLEA), which in the mid-1960'sbegan providing grants foreducational programs. It was anessential first step as thescholarships to be funded by LEEPwould be of little effect if therewere few educational programswhere they could be used. In thefall of 1966 the new RI'I programreceived a grant of $15,000 to paystart-up costs ior development ofa four-year degree program, andin the following year animplementation grant of $25,000was received.

The activity of getting the grantsand promoting the newcurriculum involved, quiteimportantly, a significant mix ofconcerned and influential people.RPI President Oliver maintainedthe necessary administrativesupport, but more specificmomentum was supplied bycriminal justice professionals whosaw the need for the educationalprogram. Major Frank Duling,later to be the Richmond policechief, gave active assistance inseeking the OLEA grant and inencouraging the planning. Thefirst harbinger of the futurecorrectional component in thecurriculum appeared whenwarden David Heritage at thefederal correctional institution inPetersburg made his interestknown, urging development ofcourses that would be pertinentfor prison personnel. His was alone voice on this point, however;at this time the curriculumplanning remained related onlyto the interests of police agencies.

THE PRINCIPAL ACTORSAPPEAR AND PLANNING

BEGINS

The major person on the national

scene to be drawn into theplanning was James D.Stinchcomb, supervisor of theeducational unit of theInternational Association ofChiefs of Police (IACP). During1965 Frank Duling went withHormachea to visit the IACPheadquarters in Washington,D.C.,togetthehelpof that agency.Stinchcomb was effectivelyresponsive, helping to obtain theOLEA grant and giving helpfulsuggestions on courses needed.At his suggestion the initial broadcurriculum was tightened to bringa more practical concentration ofcourses in criminal justicesubjects. An advisory committeewas formed to use the knowledgeand encourage the support of thepolice agencies. Membersincluded heads of suchorganizations as the State Police,State Capitol Pol ice, and the chiefsof police departments ofRichmond, Henrico County,Chesterfield County, Fort Lee,Hopewell, and Colonial Heights.

When Professor Hormachea firstbegan the associate degreeprogram in 1964, it was placedwithin the School of AppliedSocial Science under the generaldirection of its chairman, LoisWasher, formerly a professor inthe School of Social Work. Later,by 1970, the program was shiftedto become one of five academicunits within the new School ofCommunityServices,under DeanHarland Westermann.

A NEW DEPARTMENTCREATED

Although Dr. Westermann'sbackground as a planner had notincluded experience with lawenforcement training, he had beenquick to recognize the current newpopularity of this educationalsubject and gave it his

39

wholehearted support. The focusof the program promptlybroadened. The catalog for 1970-71 asserted that "The majorobjective of the department is toprepare young men and womanfor professional careers in lawenforcement and other areas inthebroad field of criminal justice."

Taking advantage ofStinchcomb's availability,Westermann arranged for him totake an evening class on the MaryWashington College campus inresponse to the interest of policeagencies in Northern Virginia. Inthis and other ways Stinchcomb'sinvolvement with the programcontinued until in 1971 he wasoffered, and he acceptedappointmentas the first chairmanof the new depar tment then beingcreated with the designation ofAdministration of Justice andPublic Safe

Westerm had already begunexpansion of the curriculum andthe faculty resources. In the fall of1970, FBI agent and attorneyJames Hague had been recruitedto provide courses in legal issuesof policing, a subject easilybroadened only a little later toinclude legal issues of concern tocorrections. At the same timeSteve V. Westerberg, formerlywith the Federal Bureau ofPrisons, joined the facultyprepared to teach coursesrelevantto corrections. (Hormacheamoved to the Department ofUrban Studies and Planning,though continuing to teach in thejustice program for two moreyears.)

The selection of Stinchcomb asthe department chairmanrepresented Westermann's wishto have a person of nationalexperience and reputation whocould both strengthen and expand

this new area of education.Stinchcomb had the initiativerequired in designing thecurriculum to be a full bachelor'sdegree program and workingtoward study area options incorrections, juvenile justice, tra fficsafety, fire management,occupational and industrialsafety, in addition to the originalpolice-related studies. On hisarrival in the summer of 1971 hisfirst effort was toward the trafficsafety subjects.

In 1966 Congress had passed theNational Highway Safety Act; thestate of Virginia passed its ownsuch act in 1970 to take advantageof the federal legislation andfunds. Stinchcomb, well aware ofthis source,contacted John Hanna,director of the state's highwaysafety program, applying for agrant of $12,000 to develop ahighway safety curriculum. Thegrant was received, and thecurriculum development startedpromptly with the hiring of R.Michael McDonald who was justcompleting his master's degree insafety education at CentralMissouri State University.McDonald immediately beganorganizing a traffic safety centerthrough which he and two otherinstructors offered a dynamicprogram of regional workshopsthroughout the state to teachtraffic safety and hazardousmaterials management to policeand appropriate regulatoryagencies. (McDonald left afterthree years to teach at IndianaUniversity but returned to VCUto stay in 1977. Subsequently hereceived his Ecl.D. from VirginiaPolytechnic Institute and StateUniversity. John Hanna, afterhelping with the originalplanning, served regularly afterthat as an adjunct instructor.)

National' Conferme on Corrections clr Higher Education

THE POTENTIAL FORDWERSE SERVICES

An unusual spin-off of this activi tywas a contract made with thegovernment of Saudi Arabia in1979 for the training in highwaysafety of 15 members of its policeforces. Phillip Ash, a former policechief, had just come on the facultyto teach police administrationsubjects, and he was assigned asproject director of the Saudiprogram for its 18 monthduration. Fortunately hisprevious work includedcommand of military policeoperations in several foreigncountries, one being Tunisiawhere he had gained someorientation to the Arabic culture.In organizing the project the firsttask was to employ two languageexperts to teach the ArabiansEnglish before they then could betrained in the highway safetysubjects. Altogether it was astimulating, satisfyingexperience.

The parallel development of thecorrections and juvenile optionsafter Stinchcomb arrived wasaccomplished partially with start-up grants. One new facultymember at the time, RaymondCienek, wrote a proposal whichresulted in a grant from theCriminal Justice Services agencyto fund a position in juvenilejustice studies. For this, ClementSydnor was hired from thejuvenile services of the StateDepartment of Corrections.

The Corrections Department alsomade a contribution of its own tothe adult corrections studies afterStinchcomb proposed a uniquecooperative arrangement. Thedirector.of corrections agreed tofurnish the salary for a fullprofessor with the understandingthat he would carry less than a

40

44

full teaching load while at thesame time serving as a consultantto the Corrections Department.Selection of this professor was tobe a cooperative decision of bothStinchcomb and the director ofcorrections. The fortunate firstchoice in this post was E. PrestonSharp, a long-time correctionsadministrator who at this pointwas just retiring from his positionas director of the AmericanCorrectional Association. Afterthree years with VCU Dr. Sharpretired in 1977 and was replacedby another corrections careerist.The samearrangement continueduntil a later director of correctionsterminated this position in 1982asa budget reduction measure. Bythen, however, the correctionscurriculum was stronglyrepresented in several facultypositions and was preparingnumbers of students for careersin a variety of adult and juvenilecorrectional jobs.

In 1979 the department reachedan important goal and a muchdesired accomplishment withapproval of its accreditation bythe Criminal Justice AccreditationCouncil. By that time it had gonebeyond its well developedundergraduate program to createa graduate curriculum and wasbeginning to plan towardeventual initiation of a doctoralprogram.

Although the department by thistime was gaining the respect ofboth police and correctionsagencies, it was a notable fact thatthe students were notpredominantly careerists alreadyemployed by such agencies,enrolled to seek more training.Instead, they were mainly averagestudents who were beingintroduced to the field, givenbro -I education, and preparedfor eventual recruitment by

NAtionat Conftroct on Corrtctions & Nigher Education

criminal justice agencies.

A STRATEGY FORBUILDING CREDIBILITY

Just as Dean Westermann hadsought a person of national reputeto head the department,Stinchcomb also soughtoutstanding careerists to giveprestige to the various subjects.He explained the importance ofthis was that "VCU was new andunknown; we needed programvisibility, and that's how Ioperated the staffing strategy...We had no alumni, and nobodyhad yet made it big in the field.We needed to do everything wecould to call attention to theprogram." (Letter to Author)

In the corrections area Dr. Sharpserved effectively to giveprestigious visibility, while pot icework several persons highlyqualified in police managementwere brought on board. JamesP.Morgan, appointed in 1974, hadbecome respected for outstandingpolice work in New York; at VCUhe began with full-time teachingand later was selected by theUniversity to head its campuspolice department. After that hecontinued as an adjunct instructorfor severai years.

Hardly more than a year afterFarmer's arrival Stinchcombresigned to accept appointmentas director of a law enforcementtraining center in Florida, and thelong process of recruitment of hisreplacement wasbegun. Anotherof special significance was Dr.David J. Farmer who came to thefaculty in 1980 after six years asdirector of the police division onthe National Institute of Justice.

THE PROGRAM MATURES:BROAD EDUCATION FOR

PROFESSIONALCAREERISTS

The choice of Farmer for chairmanwas popular, and thedepartment's progress continuedstrongly. In fact, it becomesdifficult to distribute the creditsprecisely between Stinchcomband Farmer as the manyaccomplishments under the firstchairman were smoothly carriedforward under the second withoutloss of momentum and with stillmore quality growth beingcontinually generated. This doesnot mean, however, that thechange of chairman brought nochange in administrative style orphilosophical direction.

The department underStinchcomb, forall its broadeningof the range of academic subjectareas, was yet tied to the historyof an elemental need for morecompetent constabularies andmore competent correctionalworkers. The curriculum did notventure far from a purpose ofenhancing and reinforcing thetechnical professionalism of thepractitioners, although for thisstage of its development this wasappropriate. In addition tocontributing to the training ofagency personnel it served thefurther important purpose ofwhetting an interest in broadereducation. It also began theprocess of widening theperspective of these publicservants to a realization thatpoliceand corrections are not islands,but that they and a variety ofregulatory agencies with theirspecialized functions must worktogether Ma common concern forall areas of public service in riskcontrol.

414 5

The highway safety program,under a new name, theTransportation Safety TrainingCenter, was an important elementin the department's broadeningfocus. Fully supported by fundsreceived from the State Divisionof Motor Vehicles, the programby this time employed threefaculty members in addition to itsdirector, McDonald, bringingexpertise in the areas of accidentinvestigation and reconstruction,vehicle occupant safety, andtraffic recordsmanagement. Their"teaching" was entirely off-campus with presentations oftraining sessions by regionsthroughout the state. In 1985 oneof McDonald's instructors, RobertBreitenbach, moved up to replacehim as director while McDonaldwas transfened to start a separatenew program of studies in riskadministration. The transportationprogram continued underBreitenbach and by 1990, with nearlytwo decades of experience, it hadgained a high degree of respectamong the state's transportationservices, making Virginia uniquein supplying this type ofspecialized program.

McDonald's new assignment wasanother substantive example ofFarmer's interest in broadeningthe usefulness of the department.With one other faculty expertjoining McDonald, they hadbrought together several subjectareas that had begun with aplanning grant received in 1980from the Virginia Department ofLaborand Industry. The productwas a degree program coveringthe various risk control subjectssuch as fire prevention, plantsecurity, and occupational andindustrial safety.

Here was a recognition thatgovernment in this century hasrecognized its wider

responsibility for risk control andhas fostered state and federalinitiatives for control of anexpanding range of hazards. Just100 years ago the first U.S. federalsafety standards for miners wereenacted; the Meat Inspection Actand a Pure Food and Dnig Actwere passed in 1906; and after1960 a growing publicconsciousness of the infinitevariety of threats to theenvironment and to work placesafety brought new federal lawsto promote highway safety, tocontrol crime, to promote cleanair and water, to control toxicsubstances, and to address manyother public hazards.

At VCU the studies inadministration of justice andpublic safety matured in the 1980' sto be unique among academicprograms in the country for thisbroad, inclusive view of publicsafety topics and the concept ofpreparing practitioners withbroadly focused education. Tointroduce this significant newview of the department's mission,Farmer organized a two-daycolloquium, in September 1982,in which a distinguished group ofinvited academicians andcriminal justice professionalsdiscussed the maturingprofessionalism of public safetycareers and the elements ofcurricula that would best serve it.The result was a revisedcurriculum which the Universityapproved and put into effect inthe fall of 1983. It was designed toprovide "a more appropriategroup of core courses, morewidely grounded and broader inintellectual and academiccharacter." The concept was that"students should have ...knowledge of the field, reasoningand critical thinking, groundedphilosophy, communicationcapability, and professional

Mttionat Conference on Corrections & Higfter Education

skills." (Hague, 1983)

EDUCATING FOR THEWELL-ROUNDEDPROFESSIONAL

In this and other ways Farmerpursued a goal of bringing thedepartment to a "period ofmaturity," accomplishing anexpanded MisSior, of educatingcapable thinkers rather than justtechnicians. "Rather, criminaljustice should be the focus of anumber of approaches andmethodologies . . . . aninterdisciplinary study, andtechnical considerations shouldbe but one part" (Farmer, 1990).

The revised curriculum was notthe only element in the marchtoward a maturing academicprogram. To make possible anincreased emphasis uponscholarship the teaching loads forfaculty members were reduced.Each year a gradu ate assistant wasenlisted to help faculty in variousways. To encou rage public serviceand wide ranging researchprojects there was created in 1984the Institute for Criminal justiceand Public Safety Research.Under this rubric research tf;rantswere sought and research projectscarried out by any of the variousfaculty members. The projectswere not limited to the Virginiascene, but addressed criminaljustice issues such as methods ofhandling high-risk juvenileoffenders in a variety of states;comparisons between states innon-jail juvenile detentionalternatives; and methods foreducators in fostering resistanceto drug use among students.

Inevitably the widening interestsand capability of the departmenthad to be recognized by a changeof name. In 1988, afterconsiderable discussion within

424 6

the faculty group, a new namewas proposed to the Board ofVisitors. In that July the Boardapproved the new departmenttitle, Justice and RiskAdministration. The research armwas similarly renamed, becomingthe Institute for Research in Justiceand Risk Administration.

An outstanding indicator of theresolve to promote broadeducational approaches was thedevelopment for the State Policeof an intensive managementtraining institute, supplying 15credit hours, for "promisingadministrators." Startingin 1984,this became an annual offering towhich the State Policeadministration sent about 20 ofits "on the way up" managers fora curriculum intended to broadentheir understanding of their jobs,to sharpen their skills at publicadministration, and to give thema mind-stretching perspective oftheir responsibilities. TheCorrections Department soonjoined this plan, supporting asimilar though briefer annual .

"Promising AdministratorsCorps" institute.

Robert L. Suthard, currentlySecretary of Public Safety andformerly Superintendent of StatePolice, is proud that the latterorganization was only the secondpolice force in the country toachievenationalaccreditation. Hepoints out that the considerabletask of research and agency self-assessment in preparation for theaccreditation approval wasaccomplished with substantialhelp from the VCU promisingadministrators course. Theofficerstudents did the work as part oftheirassigned field work projects.But the effect has been morecomprehensive than that. Suthardcomments that "VCU will alwaysbe remembered by me as

lauland Conference on Corrections &94her 'Education

providing to the Virginia StatePolice the first college-level, on-site program which has sparkedthe initiative of dozens of statepolice officers to continue theireducation and eventually obtaintheir degrees." And with an eyeto the vast corrections system nowamong his responsibilities, headds that it is equally appropriatefor this kind of opportunity toextend to any of the criminaljustice components.

MATURITY BRINGSDIVERSITY AND VITALITY

As a logical extension of thegraduate studies, a doctoralprogram was created incooperation with otherdepartments in the School ofCommunity and Public Affairs,providing a Doctorate in PublicAdministrafr idso, a varietyof extracurri.. ular elementsappeared, enriching the studentexperience. For students with aninterest in the risk control subjectsthere was a VCU section of theAmerican Society of SafetyEngineers. It has annuallysponsored a $500 scholarship fora student preparing as a safety

professional. Also, as anappreciated public service project,it conducted for several years theannual New-Year's "222-MUCH"program. To prevent temporarilyimpaired party-goers fromattempting to drive, studentvolunteers would stand by at the222-MUCH telephone number,ready to come meet the person ata bar or party and drivehim home.

For criminal justice students, theschool participated in the annualawards program of the NationalCriminal Justice Honor Society,and maintained an activechapterof its Lambda Alpha Epsilonorganization. (When the chapterhad been formally installed in

1968 the official who came fromthe national organization toconduct the ceremony wasJamesHooker, who ten years later joinedthe department's faculty andlately has been designatedassistant chairman.) Among theLAE community service projectswas a well publicized day eachsemester when parents wereencouraged to bring their smallchildren for fingerprinting as ameasure for identification in case

of abduction or other criminalactions.

Campus policing was a later LAEproject developed under the titleCOPS (Corps of PreventionSpecialists). Again, studentvolunteers were involved, beinggiven training at the VCU PoliceAcademy, not to qualify as policebut to supplement police inpatrolling the campus duringevening hours to help ensure itssafety for student life generally.

CONCLUSION

The numbers seem to suggest thatthe emphasis upon broadeducational development, uponresearch, upon public service, ha s

been well accepted by theinterested agencies and byambitious students. By 1990 thisdepartment saw 98 of i ts stud en tsreceive baccalaureate degreeswhile 21 others graduated with ama ster's degree. AVCU professorof education, commenting on theproper approach for thisUniversity in general, could wellhave been characterizing thisdepartment's style and mission.After noting Pasteur's commentthat "Chance favors the preparedmind" the professor went on tosay, "So an event or a dream or aburst of intuition doesn't workunless the knowledge is there.That's the trick of the university -to prepare the mind" (Mercer,

1989).

43

It was only what the Departmentof Justice and Risk Administrationwas committed to doing - andwith increasing success. Andthese efforts should also havepleased another Virginiaeducator, Thomas Jefferson, whoobserved two centuries ago that"Laws will be wisely formed andhonestly administered inproportion as those whoadminister them are wise andhonest; whence it becomesexpedient ... that those persons ... should be rendered by liberaleducation worthy to receive andable to guard the sacred depositof the rights and liberties of theirfellow citizens" (Jefferson, 1779).

4 7

REFERENCES

William McAdoo, Guarding a Great City, New York,Arno Press, 1971 (reprint of 1906 edition), 3.

Author's interview with former Richmond PoliceChief, Frank S. Du ling.

Author's interview with former Executive Directorof the Virginia Municipal League, Harold I.Baumes.

Tom C. Clark, 'Project Effective Justice," Journal ofAmerican Judicature Society, Vol. 48, #5, October1964, 95.

Annual Editions, Criminal Ju.stice, 83/84, 218.

Nathan Douthit, "August Vollmer, Berkeley's FirstChief of Police and the Emergence of PoliceProfessionalism," California Historical Quarterly,Vol. 54, Summer 1975, 116.

La wrence W.Sherman, TheQuality of Police Education,San Francisco, Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1978, 30-33.

Samuel Walker, 'Police Professionalism: AnotherLook at the Issues, "Journal of Sociology and SocialWelfare, Vol. 3, #6, July 1976, 702-3.

E. Preston Sharp, "Manpower for Corrections,"National Conference on Corrections, Report,Williamsburg, 1971, 89.

U.S. President's Commission on Law Enforcementand Administration of Justice, Task Force Report,Corrections, Washington, D.C., 1967, 100.

Sherman, 34.

Sherman, 36.

Michael S. Serrill, "LEAA: A Question of Impact,"Corrections Magazine, Vol. 2, #4, June 1979, 7.

National Clearing House on Corrections,Williamsburg, Virginia, December 5-8, Report,LEAA, Washington, D.C., 109.

Nationd Conference on Con-talons & Higker Education

Corrections, National Advisory Commission onCriminal Justice Standards and Goals,Washington, D.C., 1973, Standard 14.9, 490.

Goals for Virginia's Criminal Justice System: Report ofthe Task Force on Criminal Justice Goals andObjectives, March 1977, 464, 191-6.

Henry H. Hibbs, A History of the Richmond ProfessionalInstitute, Richmond, Whittet and Shepperson,1973, 83.

Hibbs, 183.

Though supplemented by perusal of Universitycatalogues, much of this data is derived frominterviews with Professor Carroll Hormachea.

Letter to author from James Stinchcomb, February19, 1990.

James Hague, "The Revised AJPS UndergraduateCurriculum," The Chairman's Open Letter,January, 1983.

Letter to author from David Farmer, May 3, 1990.

The details of the modern programming in thedepartment are gained mainly through theauthor's interviews with the several involvedfaculty members.

Author's interview with Secretary Robert L. Su thard.

Richmond News Leader, March 6, 1990.

Richard Rezba, as quoted in "...and that's whatteaching is all about.," by Mary Ellen Mercer;VW President's Report, 1989, 9.

Thomas Jefferson, Diffusion of Knowledge Bill,1779.Jeffersonian Cyclopedia, Vol. 1, 277.

44

4S

Notiond Cortfentsce on Corrections & 240o Education

A STUDY OF THE ROLE OF THE STUDENT-TEACHER RELATIONSHIP WITHIN

CORRECTIONAL EDUCATION

INTRODUCTION

American correctional history hasbeen a convoluted, contradictory,and confusing series of efforts torehabilitate, punish, isolate, andincapacitate offenders. Theseefforts have taken the form ofsevere corporal and psychologicalpunishment, occasionally overlygenerous and indulgent"treatment" and mixtures ofeverything in between; frequentlyexisting side by side with oneanother. The one constant overthe past 200 years of correctionalhistory has been some form ofincapacitation of offenders,usually by means of incarceration(American CorrectionalAssociation, 1983; Clare &Kramer, 1976; Allen &Simonsen,1975; Mitford, 1973). Manycorrectional programs have beenfads which were short lived(Ayers, 1981). Some have been inexistence for some time and haveestablished themselves assubstantive rehabilitative effortswith a recognized body ofdocumenta tion supporting them.Correctional education isgenerally considered to be one ofthe substantive and establishedprograms in corrections (Ryan &

Woodward, 1987).

Early on in the history o f Americancorrections, it was believed thatyoung adult offenders were moreamenable to correction, or as itwas later termed, rehabilitation,

bYDaniel W. Lawrence

than were older criminals. Olderoffenders were believed to bemore set in their ways, and thepath to their salvation was forthem to become "penitent" fortheir crimes, hence the namepenitentiary carne to be appliedto their place of incarceration. Toachieve this end, older offenderswere expected to spend most oftheir time in isolation reflectingon their crimes (CorrectionsCompendium, 1985; AmericanCorrectional Association, 1983;Mitford, 1973).

As early as 1876, the need forprison education for adults wasrecognized, at least for theyounger adult offenders, and thefirst true prison educationprogram in the United States wasinaugurated at the ElmiraReformatory in New York byZebulon Brockway (AmericanCorrectional Association, 1983;Linden & Perry, 1982; Allen &Simonsen, 1975; Lurie, 1965).Correctional education similarlybegan to emerge in 1914 in Canadawith the recognition that thestate's obligation to the prisonerdoes not end with punishment(Roberts, 1973). Prison educationwas thebeginn ing of wha tBoshier(1983) referred to as society's needto provide fairness in a just society.

After World War II the impetusfor correctional educationalprograms for adults grew evenmore rapidly. Correctional

45 4 9

edu.mtion came to be accepted asone of the cornerstones of therehabilitative effort. Educationalprograms were instituted in stateand federal correctional facilitiesin all of the United States. Adultoffenders were given theopportunity to further theireducation as a means of stayingout of prison in the future (Ryan&Woodard, 1987; CorrectionsCompendium, 1985; Linden &Perry,1982;Clare&Kramer,1976;Roberts, 1973; Menninger, 1968).

Today inmates enroll incorrectional education programsfor various reasons: they wish toreduce boredom; they seekknowledge; they believe that theirloved ones want or expect themto; they believe participation in

an educational program will earnthem additional time creditstoward an earlier release or helpthem obtain a lower securityclassification; they seektemporary relief from theirimmediate prison surroundings;they are responding to gang orpeer grou p expectations; they areable to escape summer heatbecause the classroom is airconditioned and their housingunit is not; they believe thateducation will assist them in notreturning to prison once released;or as one i nmate put i t,because hedid not want to die in prison andobtaining an education was hisbest hope of avoiding that fate(Parsons, 1990; Kiser, 1987;

Meussling, 1984; Corcoran, 1984;Hruska, 1981; Ayers, 1981; andWhetstone, 1981).

Boshier (1983) believed, as a resultof his research, that inmates maywant to learn for the same reasonas do many non-inmates, for thesake of learning. While manyinmates may be in the classroomfor what some might consider tobe the wrong reasons,nevertheless, they are there(Roberts, 1973).

BACKGROUND OF THEPROBLEM

Inmates have long beenconsidered by some to beacademically retarded whencompared to their "free world"peers (Herrick, 1988; Belzer, 1988;Fox, 1987; Longacre, 1981; Dell'Apa, 1973). Tests administeredto inmates in academic programsat various correctional settingswithin the United States indicatethat the inmates tested wereeducationally well behind theirage cohorts (Herrick, 1988;Lawrence, 1988; Reagen &Stoughton, 1976; Roberts, 1973;Nevels, Bontrager, Franz &Lawrence, 1967).

It has been demonstrated on anational level, however, thatinmates enrolled in correctionaleducational programs makesignificant progress in learning(Welch, 1988; Ryan & Woodard,1987; Dilulio, 1987). Thesefindings were also borne out bythe experiences of the inmatestested by the investigator on alocal level at a facility operated bythe Oklahoma Department ofCorrections (ODOC) (Lawrence,1988).

There has been an ongoingnational debate as to whether ornot correctional education in fact

VtionalConferme on Correaion.s O 91wher Education

reduces recidivism (returning toprison after once having beenreleased). The opinions varywidely and the evidence eitherway is inconclusive (Linden &Perry, 1982). Ryan and Woodard(1987) argue there i s no conclusiveevidence linking correctionaleducational programs torecidivism or post-releaseadjustment. This view waslikewise held by Samenow (1984)and Fogel (1976).

A recent study by Hodgkinson(1989) indicated that the elevenstates with the lowest high schooldrop-out rate also were amongthe states with the lowestincarceration rates per 100,000population, Minnesota havinghad the lowest drop-out rate. Thestate with the highest drop-outrate, Florida, also had the highestincarceration rate per 100,000population.

Several studies have beenconducted with regard to theparticipation of inmates incorrectional educationalprograms and recidivism rates.Langenbach,North,Aagaard andChown (1990) found that inmatesparticipating in the TelevisedInstructional System (us) withinthe ODOC showed a significantpositive relationship betweenparticipation in TIS andrecidivism. Projected re-incarcera tion rates were lower forthe TIS group than for the non-participants.

A study by Duguid (1981)compared a total of 74 former non-students in a university programat a Canadian institution. Thestudent group reported a 15percent recidivism rate while thenon-student group reported a 48percent recidivism rate.

Similarly, a study conducted by

50

Reagen and Stoughton (1965)found that of 500 parolees selectedat random only 15.8 percent ofthose who received institutionaleducation returned for paroleviolations. However,36.6 percentof those who did not participatein the institutional educationalprogram returned as paroleviolators.

Both the Duguid and the Reagenand Stoughton studies showrecidivism rates that were morethan double for educational non-participants when compared tothe educational participants.Herrick (1988) further reportedthat a National Association ofChildren and Adults withLearning Disabil i ties study foundthat learning disabled juveniledelinquents who had as little assixty hours of remediation hadsignificantly lower recidivismrates. As encouraging as theywere, none of the mentionedstudies could determine a causalrelationship between recidivismand education.

It should further be noted, withreference to the Reagen andStoughton study, that paroleviol ations a re not the onl y cri teriaby which recidivism is mea sured .

Those convicted of new crimeswhile on parole may or may notbe considered parole violators,depending on.the definition of aparole violator used by thereporting agency. In addition,thoseoffendersreturnedtoprisonafterdischargefromparolewouldnot be covered by a study such asReagen and Stoughton's.

Recidivism as the soledeterminant of the success of acorrectional or correctionaleducational program is flawed.Clare and Kramer (1976) pointedout that recidivism ratestraditionally do not take into

%Colima! Conferenceon Corrraions Nigher Education

account other important socialfactors such as jobs, family,personal stability, seriousness ofsubsequent crimes, and non-correctional education.Langenbach,North,Aagaard,andChown (1990), for example,comment on the difficulty ofcontrolling such variables aseducation and employment intheir study. Any of these factorsmight have played a critical rolewith regard to an individual'sability to avoid prison again afteronce having been released.

Linden and Perry (1982) surveyednumerous studies on prisoneducational programs andlikewise concluded that theresearch data was inconclusive,mostly due to poor design, withregard to prison educationalparticipation and recidivism.They did conclude, however, thatthe prison setting was a good placefor an educational program.Ayers (1981) believed that theacculturation processexperieneedby inmate students might havebeen more important than wasthe education they receive.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

It was the investigator's belief thatthe relationship between theteacher and the student in thecorrectional educational settingwas in large part what enabledthe correctiona 1 student to achieveacademically. Ferguson (1980)stated that relationships were thecrucible of the formative process.As such, she believed thatrelationships are bound to alter asense of wider connection withothers providing they, viz, theinmates, were willing to risk.

Much has been written andspoken regarding the power ofhuman relationships. However,it appeared that this subject had

received little systematic study.The present study was intendedto fill in some of the lacunae inone area of that subject, i.e.,student-teacher relationships in acorrectional educational setting.

A partnership of some typeseemed to exist between theteacher and the student incorrectional educational settings.There appeared to be, however,some difference of degreebetween education in thetraditional classroom and thatwhich occurred in the correctionaleducational setting. Welch (1988)and Roberts(1973)suggested thatcorrectional education was moreof a socialization process tha n oneof imparting skills andknowledge, vis-a-vis, thetraditional classroom.

Inmate attitudes toward life ingeneral were frequentlycharacterized as: hostile, angry,suspicious, frustrated, discouraged,cynical, manipulative, and the like(Kiser, 1987; Sarnenow, 1984;Corocoran, 1984; Hruska, 1981;Whetstone,1981;Goffman,1%1).Asa result of the realitiesof prisonfe, prisoners o ften suffered from

what might well have beendescribed as ennui. Even thoughexamplesofsuchbehaviorexistedin traditional classrooms, it wasunlikely that those attitudesexisted to the degree or depth inthe public school classroom thatthey did in the prison classroomsetting.

METHODOLOGY

A naturalistic design withqualitative methods was chosenby the investigator because suchan approach seemed better sui tedto tease out answers to thequestion stated by the researchproblem i.e., what was the natureof the student-teacher relationship

47

in correctional education. Theinvestigator agreed with Rockhill(1982) that to use a quantitativeand necessarily reductiveapproach in such a study wouldbe to risk losing substantivematerial which was critical to theunderstanding of the nature ofthe relationship.

A number of terms, sometimesused interchangeably, wereutilized to describe qualitativeinvestigation. Lincoln and Guba(1985) described the result of acase study or naturalistic inquiryas a "thick description." That typeof study was also called "holistic,"lifelilte," "grounded," "inductive,"and "exploratory" (Merriam, 1988).

Such descri ptors a s heuristic wereapplied to case studies to indicatethat they could bring about newmeaning, extend the reader'sexperience, or confirm what mayalready have been known(Merriam,1988). Merriam furtherpointed out tha tease stud ies werecharacterized by d scovery of newrela tionships a nd concepts, ratherthan by verification ofpredetermined hypotheses aswere most rationalistic,quantitative studies.

Distortion and /or in tru sion by theinvestigator had long been acriticism of qualitative orethnographic inquiry on the partof quanti tative research ers (Webb,Campbell, Schwartz, andSechrest, 1971). Brookfield (1984)commented that there was thedanger of the investigatorbecoming so immersed in the da tathat it was difficult to develop anoverall perspective with regardto the main features of that data.Rockhill (1982) pointed out thatcloseness of the investigator tothe subject was not invalid andwasin fact integral to such studies.It appeared, however, that both

qualitative and quantitativeresearch methods weresusceptible to manipulation andomissions or commissions(Merriam, 1988; Lincoln andCuba, 1985; Bogdan and Biklin,1982; Goetz and LeCompte, 1981).

Lincoln and Guba (1985) statedthat the interaction between theobserved and the observer inquantitative research had beenthere all along anyway. Theyfurther commented thatmeaningful human research wasimpossible without theunderstanding and cooperationof thesubjects, answeringanothercriticism of qualitative inquiry.

With theold distinctions betweenquantitative and qualitativeresearch less clear, was there stilla d i fference between the two? Theanswer was that there remained adifference and the advantages ofthe two techniques needed to beexplored to assure that theappropriate method had beenchosen for the correct reasons.

The following descriptors fromBogdan and Biklin (1982) offeredthe best insight into why theinvestigator chose the qualitative,rather than the quantitative,research model. Qualitativeresearch was characterized asbeing empathetic, dependent ontrust, intense, ongoing, inductive,and with a constant comparativeanalysis.

Quantitative research, on theother hand, was characterized asbeing reductionist, detached,distant, deductive, statistical, andwith analysis occurring at theconclusion of the data collection.In the opinion of the investigator,thequalitativemodelbetter suitedthe nature of the study.

Muional. Conference on Corrections & Higher Vocation

POPULATION OF THESTUDY

The population studied consistedof a ten percent sample of all ofthe students enrolled in theLexington Assessment andReception Center (LARC)academic educational program.There were 89 male studentsenrolled at the time the samplewas taken. That number wasrounded off to 90 to render thesample manageable. Each studentwas assigned a sequential numberbased on their position on theacademic records of the LARCeducational program. A table ofrandom numbers was utilized toselect the nine inmate studentsubjects (Minium, 1978).

MI five teachers employed in theLARC educational progra m at thetime (one teacher subsequentlyresigned) were included in thestudy. The school principal wasalso included as a subject as hefrequently substituted as a teacherand had been at the facility for anumber of years. The principalwas also the designated testadministrator for the OklahomaDepartment of Educationsanctioned General EquivalencyDiploma (GED) test, and as suchhad considerable interaction withmost of the students enrolled inthe educational program. Thestudy, then, had a total populationof fifteen.

DATA COLLECTION

A one-on-one interview techniquewas utilized by the investigatorto collect the data. An informalconversational approach wasused to introduce he criticalquestions during the studentinterviews. The str ient-subjectwas not told the exact focus of thestudy, only that the investigatorwanted to hear the student's

48

opinions of and reactions to theeducational program at the LARCand at any other correctionalfacility where the subject mighthave been enrolled as a student.

The investigator relied on fieldnotes taken at the time of theinterview and on his memory tolater transcribe impressions of theprocess of the interview and thesubject. Throughout the interviewprocess, the stud ent-subjects werecasually guided toward theprincipal topic of the inquiry, i.e.,the subject's relationship with histeachers during and prior toincarceration. Open-ended"icebreaker" questions wereintroduced by the investigator tomaintain the flow or process ofthe interview.

Interviews were conducted in a"neutral" room away from theacademic setting and the rest ofthe inmate population. Inmateswere innately suspicious andwere frequently constrained tospeak freely in a group setting orwithin earshot of their peers.Expecta dons and limita tions, wi thregard to an inmate's ability tospeak freely to anyone perceivedas a staff member, were frequentlyplaced on inmates by otherinmates and occasionally by staffmembers. Even casualconversation with a staff memberunder certain circumstancescouldbe a source of conflict for an inmateand could have restricted hisability to interact genuinely. Itwas extremely important for thehealth and well-being of anyinmate that they not be placed ina compromising posi ti on,regardless of the type ofinteraction one wascontemplating.

Use of a tape recorder to documentthe interviews was ruled out forthe same reasons. Inmates rarely

ttioaa( Ca s ft rows on Corrections & Nigher Uttaltion

encountered a tape recorderexcept when they were the subjectof an investigation or were beforean institutional discipline court.Both of these nega ti ve associa donsobviated the tape recorder as aviable tool for an inquiry such asthis one.

Additional background materialon the inmate-subjects wasgathered from the ODOC"Consolidated Record Card".This card contained suchinformation as age, crime, priorincarcerations, race, time-left-to-service,ODOCdisciplinehistory,consecutive or concun.ent cases,and physical characteristics.

The teacher-subjects wereinformed of the focus of theinquiry. This approach was takento better enable the teachers toreflect on their teachingexperiences within thecorrectional setting. It wasanticipated by the investigatorthat the teachers would then beable to sort out what was germanefrom what was not, with regardto the student-teacherrelationships that they hadexperienced. The same questionswere utilized for both the studentsand the teachers.

THE SETTING

All of the inmates selected were,at the time of the study, assignedto the medium security "yard" atthe LARC. LARC was the largestinstitution by population of anyof the 23 ODOC housing facilitieswithin the state correctionalsystem. LARC housed on theaverage 1150 inmates daily inthree separate administrativehousing divisions within thefacility.

The medium security inmateslived within the main security

perimeter of the institufion in oneof four yard housing units.Inmates lived, ate, worked,studied, recreated, and visitedtheir loved ones within theconfines of the 15 acres comprisingthe yard. The rated population ofthe yard in- 0 inmatesand bedswere rarely vacant. Combinedwith the staff assigned to workthe yard, the population densityof the yard was approximately 47persons per acre. The 1986 UnitedSta tes Bureau of theCensus (1988)figures showed that thepopulation of the yard at LARCexceeded the most denselypopulated city in the United States(New York) by 6,000 persons persquare mile-30,000 to 24,000.

On June 1, 1989, the racialbreakdown of the inmatepopulation of the ODOC was 58percent white, 33 percent black,and nine percent other (ODOC,1989). That breakdown has beenfairly consisten t over the past fewyears and was indicative of theinmate population racialbreakdown at LARC as well.

CONCLUSIONS

Seven of the surveyed inmateswere high school dropouts whenincarcerated and two inmates hadreceived their secondarydiplomaprior to their incarceration. Therewere six white males (two-thirdsof the sample) and three blackmales (one-third) among theparticipants studied.

Both Mauer (1990) and Welch (1988)reported the disproportionatenumbers of minorities,predominantly black, within theAmerican prison system. Sincethe racial composition of thesample was consistent with theoverall racial composition of theODOC (ODOC, 1989), the LARCsample seemed representative.

49

Three of the inmate-subjectsreported having been involved inan educational program atanother ODOC facility prior totheir arrival at LARC. Theremainder of the subjects hadnever been enrolled in an ODOCeducational program prior tobecoming involved in the LARCeducational program. Twoinmates had earned their GED'ssince entering prison.

Eight of the nine inmate-subjectsreported having had or having atthe time of the study what theyconsidered to be a significantrelationship with a teacher atLARC or at another ODOCfacility. Only one inmate-subjectreported never having had a closerelationship with any teacher atany time, ei ther in or out ofprison.Of the eight subjects who reporteda close relationship with a teacher,one was with a teacher who wasemployed at another ODOCfacility and another was with aLARC teacher who retiredapproximately one and one halfyears prior to the study. Theremainder of the relationships(six) occurred at LARC and werecurrent at the time of the study.

The investigator believes the d a tastrongly suggested that inmateswho enrolled and stayed in acorrectional educational programdid tend to forma close, signi ficant(for the inmate) relationship witha teacher during the courseof theireducational program. Frequently,the relationship was with the firstteacher to whom the inmate wasassigned and seemed not to havebeen duplicated if the inmate wasassigned another teacher forwhatever reason. That may bewhat one teacher feared, as shedecided to leave LARC for anotherposition, when she suggested thather students "may not giveanother teacher a chance." The

study suggested that studentseither did not again place suchtrust in another teacher or onlydid so reluctantly. No inmate-subiect studied at LARC had yetplaced such trust in a subsequentteacher.

Based on the interviewsconducted with the student-subjects, the investigatorcharacterized six of the studentsas highly motivated, twomoderately motivated, and oneunmotivated with regard to theireducational programs. The latterwas dropped by his teacher fromthe educational program shortlyafter his interview due to non-attendance and his apparent lackof interest in the educationalprogram.

It was the unmotivated student'slack of academic interest that insomeways confirmed themportance of the student-teacher

relationship for the other eightsubjects. Since he had "nothing tohang on to" he simply faded outof the program. The otherstudents had a relationship tohang on to, or did have such arelationship at one time.

Two sub)ects reported that theywould have left the LARCeducational program had it notbeen for the relationship they hadwith their teachers. Both subjectsalso said that they had consideredchanging from the educationalprogram to one of the vo-techprograms but that they had notyet done so, mostly because oftheir teachers.

The existence of a former student-teacher relationship seemed tohave encouraged two of thestudents to progress from the GEDto the TIS program. Both claimedto have had a positive relationshipwith their TIS coordinator, but

Nationat Conference on Corrections rUucaion

both also believed they were forthe most part self-motivated withregard to their current educa tionalprogram. Their coordinator had,however, helped both studentssecure funding for their classes.

The higher education student'sexperience may be illustrative ofBoshier's (1983) and Whetstone's(1981) observation regarding acrucial threshold occurringaround the end of the second yearof prison university studies. Atthat juncture, Boshier andWhetstone repo rted, the student'sself-confidence and self-imageseemed to have taken a positiveleap. Learning and attitudesengendered by the learningexperience were internalized orincorporated by the student. Itappeared that at this juncture thepresence of a significant student-teacher relationship might havebeen, at least partially, supplantedby the student's own motivation.

Linden and Perry (1982) andAyers (1981) confirmed Boshier'sand Whetstone's observations.Langenbach and Korhonen (1988)suggested a similar process whenthey spoke of the complex andpersonal reasons that persistershad for continuing theireducation. The majority ofinma tes, such as the one who wasdropped forlack of interest, mighthave confirmed Langenbach andKorhonen's posit of the non-persister's "bluster syndrome,"referring to those students whoconsistently overrated theirabilities. Inmate personalitycharacteristics, as reported byLilly, Cullen, and Ball (1989) andSamenow (1984), were consistentwith Ungenbach and Korhonen'sobservations for non-persisters.

An unexpected outgrowth of thestudy was one student's referenceto a sort of "campus camaraderie"

50

5 4

among some of the students inthe TIS program. Bosher (1983)and Whetstone (1981) spoke of asimilar atmosphere at theuniversity program they wereinvolved with at a Canadianinstitution.

One of the most unexpected andgratifying aspects of the study forthe investigator was the obviousesteem in which most of thestudents held their teachers. Itwasreasonable,based on the data,to believe that at least four of theinmate-students actively viewedtheir teachers as role models.Another two certainly spoke oftheir former, significant student-teacher relationship in terms thatwere consistent with role-modeling as well.

One of the questions whichinterested the investigator at theoutset of the study was whetheror not the student-subject datawould coincide with tha t reportedby the teacher-subjects. It seemedto tie investigator that theper 6ptions of both the studentsand the teachers, with regard tothe important qualities of thestudent-teacher relationship, didcorrespond.

The agreement of perceptionbetween teachers and students inthe LARC educational programwas in contrast to whatDarkenwald and Gavin (1987)reported. Darkenwald and Gavincommented on several studieswhich found substantiald i fferences between teachers' andstudents' perceptions of both theideal and actual traditionalclassroom environment.

All of the teacher-subjectsreported that they believed thestudent-teacher relationship hadbeen of critical importance insuccessfully carrying out their

Nfttional Conference on Corrections dr Higher Education

goals as teachers and ODOCemployees. Each of the LARCteachers used different means toaccomplish these ends, but itseemed evident to the investigatorthat the student-teacherrelationship was the vehicle.Some teachers focused on formingand strengthening therelationship, while others weremore content to let relationshipsform at the student's pace. Theinvestigator, however, had littledoubt that the student-teacherrelationship was at the core of theLARC teachers' educationalefforts.

The student-teacher relationshipappeared anomalous to thetraditional order of anycorrectional institution. Closerelationships between staff andinmates were discouraged, if notoutright forbidden by policy andconvention. That positiverelationships existFA and evenflourished wasremarkable. It wasconfirmation of Boshier's (1983),Ayers's (1981), Duguid's (1981),and Whetstone's (1981)observation regarding the schoolsetting being an oasis within theprison setting.

Welch (19843), Ayers (1981), andRoberts (1973) considered theacculturation process to have beenas important as the educationwhich the students received.Boshier (1983) and Whetstone(1981) affirmed that inmateschanged as a result of theeducational process and called forall inmates to be educated. TheLARC education program,according to the facility principal,always had a waiting list ofinmates who wished to enroll.

Goffman (1%1), in describing thecharacteristics of "totalinstitutions", also described therealities of prisons. Prisons can

rely rise above their "keel :r1 kept" atmosphere, he said.

The educational program was oneof the few experiences and placeswithin any prison where the basicreality of prison life could, eventemporarily, be overcome. Theclassroom became, as Whetstone(1981) described it, a "refuge," asanctuary from the realities of theprison where the "geniality"between teachers and studentscould prevail.

The prison educational program,at least at LARC, seemed to be aplace where Goffman's "identitykit" might have been regained,even for the moment. Educationfor the inmate-student, then,might have been thebeginning ofa return from the "civil death"which Goffman described.

RECOMMENDATIONS ANDIMPLICATIONS

The student-teacher relationshipwas found to be important to thestudent's ability to achieveacademically. Education is aprocess and the process seemedto be at least as important as thesul*ct matter. It is recommendedtha t increased emphasis be placedon the recognition and fosteringof student-teacher relationships,at least in correctional educationif not in education as a whole.

The classroom setting offers anopportunity for relationshipdevelopment which does notseem to exist elsewhere withincorrectional institutions. Thenature of prisons does notnormally allow for the formationof positive relationships betweenstaff and inmates. It isrecommended that the uniquenature and atmosphere ofcorrectional educationalprograms be protected as a "safehaven" for the establishment of

51

educationally productiverelationships.

Students did not appear to formsubsequent relationships withnew teachers once the primarystudent-teacher relationship hadbeen severed. It is recommendedthat teachers recognize theimportanceof thestudent-teacherrelationship and attempt to formsuch relationships whereverpossible and appropriate.

Students initially came to theclassroom of their own volition.Those studied, however, seemedto stay on because of therelationship formed with theirteacher. In some instances, thatrelationship appeared to be theonly element still holding thestudent in the educationalprogram. It is recommended thatthe power of the relationship berecognized and utilized tomaintain students in theeducational program until theyare able to function as sel f-di rectedstudents.

REFERENCES,

Allen, H.E., & Simonsen, CE. (1978). Corrections inAmerica: An introduction (2nd ed.). BeverlyHills, CA: Glencoe Press.

American Correctional Association (1983).Washington, D.C.: Optic Graphics.

Ayers, J.D. (1981). Education in prisons: Adevelopmental and cultural perspective.Canadian Journal of Education, 6, 20-38.

Belzer, J.A. (1990). Teaching in correctional settings:An examination of training and resource needs(Doctoral Dissertation, University of Oklahoma,1988). Dissertation Abstracts International, 50/03, 595 A.

Bogdan,R.C, &Bilkin,S.K. (1982). Qtraliiative researchfor education: An introduction to theory andmethods. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Boshier, R. (1983). Education inside: Motives forparticipation in prison education programs.Vancouver Britisis. Columbia University.

Brookfield, S. (1984). Adult learners, adult educationand the community. New York: Teachers CollegePress.

Bureau of the Census (1988). County and city databook 1988. Washington, D.C.: Department ofCommerce.

Clare, P.K, & Kramer, J.H. (1976). Introduction toAmerican Corrections. Boston: Holbrook Press.

Corcoran, F. (1984). Teaching media studies inmaximum security prisons. Proceedings of the70th Annual Meeting of the SpeechCommunications Association. Chicago: (ERICDocument Reprodu ctive Service No. ED 252901).

Corrections Compendium (1985). Survey summary:Correctional education, X (4), 1-6.

Darkenwald, G., & Gavin, W. (1987). Dropout as afunction of discrepancies between expectationsand actual experiences of the classroom socialenvironment. Adult Education Quarterly, 37,152-163.

52

Notional Confame on Corrections CY Higher Education

Dell'Apa, F. (1973). Educational programs in adultcorrectional institutions: A survey. Boulder, co.Western Interstate Commission for HigherEducation (ERIC Document Reprod uctive ServiceNo. 099 550).

Di lulio, J.J., Jr. (1987). Governing prisons: Acomparative study of correctional management.New York: The Free Press.

Duguid, S. (1981). Prison education and criminalchoice: The context of decision-making. In L.Morin (Ed.), On Prison Education, (p. 135-157).Ottawa: CanadianGovernment Publishing Centre.

Ferguson, M. (1980). The Aquarium conspiracy. LosAngeles: J.P. Tarcher.

Fogel, D. (1975). "... We are the living proof. .. ": Thejustice model forcorrections. Cincinnati: AndersonPublishing.

Fox, T.A. (1987, May). Teaching in prisons:Consideration of the concept of adult education.Change: Implications for adult learning.Conference conducted at the University ofManitoba, Regina.

Goetz, J.P., & LeCompte, M.D. (1981). Ethnographicresearch and the problem of data. Anthropologyand Education Quarterly, 12, 51-70.

Goffman, E. (1%1). Asylums: Essays of the socialsituation of mental patients and other inmates.New York: Anchor Books.

Herrick, E. (1988). The hidden handicap in prison.Corrections Compendium, XIII (3), 1-10.

H.L. (1989). The same client Thedemographics of education and service deliveryprograms. Washington, D.C.: Institute forEducation Leadership.

Hruska, T. (1981). Why I teach in prison. (ERICDocument Reproductive Service No. ED 199 702.

Kiser, G.C. (1987). Teachingcollege courses to inmates.journal of Correctional Education, 3, 102-107.

National Conference on Corrections & Molter Education

Langenbach, M., &Korhonen, L (1988). Persisters andnon-persisters in a gaduate level, non-traditionalliberal education program. Adult EducationQgrgly, 38, 136-148.

Langenbach, M., North, M., Aagaard, L., & Chown, W.(1990). Televised instmclion in Oklahoma prisons:A study of recidivism and disciplinary actions.The Journal of Correctional Education, 41, 87-94.

La wrence, D.W. (1988). Research proposal.Unpublistred manuscript,Universityof Oklahoma,College of Education, Norman.

Lilley, J.R., Cullen, F.T., & Ball, R.A. (1989).Criminological theory: Contextand consequencesNewbury Park, CA: Sage.

Lincoln, Y.S., & Cuba, E.G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry.Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Linden, R., & Peny, L (1982). The effectiveness ofprisoneducation programs. journal of Counseling,Services, & Rehabilitation, 6 (4), 43-57.

Longacre, CD. (1982). An analysis of the OklahomaDepartment of Correclions adult basic educationand general education development teachertraining needs. °Doctoral dissertation, Universityof Oklahoma, 1981). Dissertation AbstractsInternational, 42, 2971 A.

Lurie, H.L. (Ed.) (1965). Encyclopedia of social workNew York: National Associationof Social Workers.

Mauer, M. (1990). Young black men and the criminaljustice system. Correctional Compendium, XV,(2), p. 1-6.

Menninger, K. (1968). The crime of punishment NewYork The Viking Press.

Merriam,S.B. (1988). Case study research in education:A qualitative approach. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Meussling, V. (1984). The emotional climate of theinterpersonal classroom in a maximum securityprison for males. journalofCorrectional Education,35 (Dec.), 114-117.

Minium, E.W. (1978). Statistical reasoning inpsychology and education (2nd ed.). New York:John Wiley & Sons.

Mitford, J. (1973). Kind and unusual punishment.New York: Alfred A. Knopt

Nevels, J., Bontrager, R, Franz, R, & Lawrence, D.(1967). A descriptive study of thechildren admittedto the Douglas County Youth Center from July 1,1965 to June 30,1966. Unpublished master's thesis,University of Nebraska, Lincoln.

ODOC (1990). Oklahoma Department of Corrections:Monthly Report for August,1990. Oklahoma City:Oklahoma Department of Corrections.

Parsons, M.D. (1990). Factors relating to inmateeducational participation. Unpublished doctoraldissertation, University of Oklahoma, Norman.

Reagen, M.V., & Stoughton, D.M. (Eds.). (1976). Schoolbehind bars: A descriptiveoveMew of correctionaleducation in the American prison system.Metuchen, NJ: The Scarecrow Press.

Roberts, A.R. (Ed.). (1973). Readings in prison education.Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.

Rockhill, K. (1982). Researching participation in adulteducation: The potential of the qualitativeperspective. Adult Education, 33 (4), 3-19.

Ryan, T.A., & Woodard, J.C. (1987). Correctionaleducation: A state of the art analysis (NationalInstitute of CorrectionsReport). Washington, D.C.:US. Department of Justice.

Samenow, S.E. (1984). Inside the criminal mind. NewYork: Times Books.

Webb, E.J., Campbell, D.T., Schwartz, RD., & Sechrest,L. (1971). Unobtrusive measures. Chicago: RandMcNally & Co.

Welch, R. (1988). Doing time-education plays a role.Corrections Compendium, XII (8), 1-7.

Whetstone, K. (1981). How the prisoner sees education.In J.D. Ayers (Ed.). Proceedings of the NationalConference on Prison Education (p. 79-93).

Victoria, B.C: University of Victoria.

53

National Conference on Corrections dr 94glicr Education

FUTURE OPPORTUNITIES OF SYMBIOSIS INRELATING HIGHER EDUCATION TO

CORRECTIONAL IN-SERVICE TRAINING

Higher education cannot hope tofulfill correctional in-servicetraining needs. Post-secondaryeducation can and should addressthe learning needs of individualsworking in corrections. It isimportant to examine thedifferences in mission of trainingvs. higher education, and thinkabout how they can form asymbtatic relationship.

Questions on this topic include:Does college teach what correctionworkers want to know? What ishigher education's place in in-service training of correction staf f?Is higher education presented informats sensitive to differentindividual's styles of learning?Participants need to identify theirlearning styles and think aboutthe economy of grouping similarlearners together. Basically whatyou need to do is to learn, to showme, to teach me. So I would expectthat you will challenge me withinquiry and agree with this or not.I'm not locked into thisphilosophy. What I can say is thatthrough flexibility, and attentionto developmental theory, maybewe can take a look and includemore people in the acti ve learningprocesses. Focusing on thelearning shengths of differentfolks has brought the curriculumto life in my training classrooms.Adult learning theories may beable to suggest to higher educationmethods of meeting the learning

blyP. Christopher Menton

needs of correctional staff andmaybe others too.

First I want to give you an outlineof who I am, some of my ideasabout correction, training andhigher education, and howthrough working together! thinkwe can be of benefit to each other.Seventeen years ago, I startedworking for the Department ofCorrection in Massachusetts. Atthat time, I was a junior at CurryCollege, a small liberal art s schooljust ou tsideof Boston. I washiredby the Department of Correctionand immediately went into a staffbasic training program. There Ifirst started noticing thedifferences between college andtraining. My training served apreparatory function. Thepracticum program I was in atCurry College served as asupportive function. Both helpedmy initial survival in thecorrection system. One thing Iwill touch on is the differencebetween higher education andcorrections in-service training.Within the first couple of yearsworking in prison, I enrolled in agraduate program and receiveda Masters in Education at BostonUniversity. How tha t ca me aboutis an example of academicoutreach to the field.

Currently I am assigned to StaffDevelopment. We address thetraining needs of department

54 rt

employees, both initially in theform of basic training programswhich is where I am currentlyassigned, and also in developmentand delivery of in-serviceprograms which is where I wasformerly the coordinator. Whatdo I want to say to a group ofpeople who seek to strengthenthe ties between academia andthe artof holding humanscaptive?I want to endorse this effort,knowing it is needed, worthy anddifficult. My feeling is that theacademic community at timesfinds corrections somewhat hardto relate to. Corrections simplycannot paint itself as an altruisticentity like mental health or otherhuman service areas. It is a bitironic, considering that theDepartment of Correction is afull service provider offeringmedical and mental health,nutritional services, recrea ti onand a whole range ofothers. Weare basically the alpha and theomega for the inmates. Yet timeafter time, I find academicinability to relate to be the case.Correction workers are held inlow esteem by other professionalindividuals or groups. As anexample, I went to a luncheonmeeting of the MassachusettsAssociation of Prison Educatorslast year. This is a group whosemembers instruct college coursesto inmates. Again and again Iwas asked questions about whatcan be done about the officers -

National Confervicc on Corrections & Itiffser Education

they are hostile anduncooperative. This perceptionbecomes the self-fulfillingprophecy. We mistake the alienenvironment of prison to be thecreation of the correction workerwhen, in fact, they share the samefear that anyone would experiencethere. There is hardly any relating.Could it be on these occasionswhen academia comes to prisonthat a lack of tolerance andpredisposed impressions on bothsides maintains the distance andserves neither? "A failure tocommunicate." We must combatcliche. How? Change yourself,do not try to change others. Bychanging oneself, others changein response to that change. Thatis the support, the humaninteraction that serves aneducator's purpose. Education'sjob is to reach out and showpossible enrollees that educatorsare supportive of theirdevelopment. This is the key todemonstrating support ofsomeone's development;accepting them. Not an easy task.This brings us to the paradox ofpromoting intellectual ethicaldevelopmen t and at the same timebeing non-judgmental. It is atough job, but it is the mission ofgood education to facilitateunderstanding, not to simplypromote the accumulation ofknowledge. By starting with thestudent'sorientation,weadvocateinclusion and get an instantcommitmenton the student's part.This is methods material whichwe will touch on later.

The other half of the coin is whatpeople in the correction businessask me, many of whom are inhigh management positions."How could I get a graduatedegree? I would like todemonstrate the credibility of myprofessional performance withacademic certification." Many of

them express regret or aresignment that the opportunityhas slipped by them. Many ofthem would like to have morethan their Associate's orBachelor's degree. Others still innot-such-high positions in theDepartment of Correction regretthey do not have Associate's orBachelor's degrees. Even withtuition reimbursement programsand the high number ofeducational institutions in theMassachusetts area, it is myexperience that many find itimpossible to get any sort ofacademic recognition orfacilitation for their academicaspirations. Over two years ago,I abandoned efforts to apply foran academic program at the stateuniversity. I considered the 200-word self-promotional statementto be a challenge to draft,balancing real personal historywith admissions committee'sexpectations. But the requi remen tthat really prompted me todiscontinue my efforts was whenthe application directionsinstructed me to examine all thecourses I had taken over myacademic career in a specificdiscipline, psychology, andcalculate a grade point average.Then I had todo it on anundergraduate level for allpsychology courses and then on agraduate level for all psychologycourses. I lost focus there. I thinkPage Smith points out in hisbook,Killing the Spirit, that sometimesacademics get a little fixed onscientific quantitative methodsand lose sight of the fact thatnumbers do not tell all. Often wehave focused on a particular styleof knowledge acquisitionsomewhat to the exclusion orsacrifice of others. this causesdistress and frustration in thelearner whose strong suit is notnumber-crunching or literaturesearching. Quantification offers

55

some real predictability in resultsbut its specificity sacrifices partsof the big picture. It fails, at times,to lend dignity and respect thatbelong to the plodders who plodalong adding very stabilizingqualities to wherever they areplodding. Many correctionpersonnel care only about someconcrete numbers such as inmatepopulation counts or budgetallotments. Many correctionsworkers feel they deal with moreconcrete issues, and thatacademics is a much morerespectable, intellectuallyintimidating field and, in fact, anivory tower - someplace theycannot go to. It is beyond them.

My experience tells me that mostcorrectional workers get into thefield with a high school diplomaor GED and very little educationbeyond that. That is the minimumhiring requirement in my state.Many recruits I see labor overacademic training requirementswhile most respond withexcitement to hands-on training.The genera l feeling that !perceiveis that their memories of schoolingexperience are not their fondestones. The equation that reads"education is fun" does not ringtrue for many.

Let's shift gears...

EXERCISE #1

As a starting point, I would likeeverybody to take a look at thesesets of quotes (posted on the wallsof the room starting front-left,moving clockwise). I would likeyou to gravitate to the one thatyou perceive to be appropriate tobe understandable to agree withto identify with, to sympathizewith, to disagree with least of allthe others, comparativelyspeaking. The first set, over inthis corner:

b`J

A. Information - input"A problem well stated is aproblem half solved." Taskanalysis, needs assessmentson positions in correctionswill help identify curriculumneeds.

B. Organizational Layout -"Plan your work and workyour plan." The structure ofan academic program can bemutually beneficial to theprogram and the student.

C Affect - "Not everything thatcount !.. can be counted."Outreach, personal contacts,support and word of mouthcan mean a successfulprogram.

D. Impact - "Bring action to theabsaaction." The potentialfor sharing resou rces betweenthese fields is outstanding.

This exercise allows participantsto identify their own learningstyles.

One current adult learning theorybreaks down individual learningpropensities into four quadrants.This started as the "right brain,left brai n" learning theories. Splitbrain studies of epileptics byRoger Sperry noted functionaldifferences on the left contrastedto the right after patients withuncontrollable seizuresunderwent surgical severing ofthe hemispheres of the brain. Thishas evolved to whole brainlearning theories by NedHerrmann. Traditional styles ofteaching have focused on learningpropensities that need facts andtestable theories. Curricula andteaching methods at institutionsof higher learning seem gearedtowards these learners. It ischaracterized by logical fact-based thought. Thinking isplanned, sequenfial and detail-oriented. This is the left brainlearner.

6uiotrat Conference on Corrections & Nigher Education

I recently attended a trainingpresented by the U.S. Office ofPersonnel Management. Theprogram was billed as acceleratedlearning. Through posters withsimple quotes tacked up on thewall like these you see today, thetrainers did what we have done.These groups were subdividedinto manageable sizes. Theyproceeded to have fun and , forme, drove home the point thatteachers need learners to teach,yet learners will learn regardless.For education to have meaningfor anyone who wants it, teachingstyles must address thedifferences in processinginformation we all have, for weneed everyone's assistance inevolving education at a pace thatcomes close to the demand.

Although the bulk of correctionaladministrators who haveattended the National Institute ofCorrections have been tested outas traditional left brain learners,they make up a small percentageof Department staff. I believe that,just as in schools and other socialsystems, correctionaladministration is caught up withquick yield and highly structuredshort-term planning. This per seis not a negative thing, exceptwhen it comes to such dominanceas to preclude other styles oflearning. In his book A Force ForChange,HarvardBusinessSchoolProfessor John Kotter puts forththe proposition that our socialorganiza tions are headed by goodmanagers with weak leadershipskills.

The long-term correctionpersonnel who have started theircareers in the security end of thebusiness, generally are half rightbrain learners. These people arerisk takers, action oriented.Learning for these folks must beflexibly structured and highly

56

60

interpersonal. With sensitivitytowards the fact that differentpeople learn in different ways, Ihave employed a philosophy ofbeing "student focused" in mytrainings and teaching.

The connection between highereducation and the training ofcorrectional staff is not a smoothone and can prove difficult. Thisalso applies to other lawenforcement careers. Non-traditional learning s tyles of muchof the correction staff are not thestaple of the academiccommunity. Higher educationmay seem unable to translateabstract theories and studies intomeaningful practicalcontributions to the field. Theinability to relate with highereducation personnel canengender feelings of a lesser statusby the correction worker. He/she fears the academician asmentally superior, and thenra tionali zes t hat the professors areout of touch with reality. Thisconfusion does not promotepositive self-image in the worker,nor does it breed much mutualrespect.

As we continue to look atcorrectional careers, it is usefuland insightful to note thatcorrectional staff positions areoften obtained by default. No oneplanned an applying for them.Positions were and still are oftenused as stepping stones to moredesirable and prestigiouspositions in law enforcement. Thisis not considered to be arespectable job. These positionshave been referred to a being atthe bottom rung of the criminaljustice career ladder, the lowestpositions in the field.

The correctional staff who haveadvanced degrees have hadd i fficul ty assimilating. I have seen

Notional. Conference on Corrections & Nig(er Education

the new staff person talking abouthis college experience while thefaces of his co-workers respondedwith bored and barely tolerantlooks. The worker fresh from theacademic community can becomedistressed by the disparitybetween theories and the actualpractice of corrections. They can,by design or default, undermineand threaten theauthority of theirsupervisors who can, in turn,retain feelings of suspicion,distrust and envy. Correctionalstaff are not encouraged to pursuehigher education. The unwrittenyet dear message is to not pursuehigher education, for its rewardsare dubious. This coupled withthe demands to utilize learningstyles that have previously provenunsuccessful is a big deterrent.Correction staff with advancedacademic certification, who doreceive promotions, may beviewed as less credible, forgenerally they will have had moreorganizational and administrativeresponsibilities than line or shiftresponsibilities.

In-service training in correctionsis different from education:Training addresses practicalconsiderations. Clipped, succinctand to the point are therequirements. The program musthave 1) time constraints, 2)performance focus, and 3) fiscalpracticality and financialpracticality. Trainingismotivatedby issues of pragmaticconsequence and good faithefforts to equip staff to do the job.This translates into: addressingemployee turnover, coveringknown liabilities such as throughcaselaw sources, statutes andnationally recognized standardsand finally, it is also good publicrelations. Certainly training isacknowledged as important butwhere, in the use of scarceresources, does it sit?

Departments have both demandsand restraints placed upon them.Conditions of overcrowding,inmate health care, the day-to-day issues of court trips and otherneeds and coverage, many times,can override the scheduledtraining. By necessity it isperformance focused. Personalenrichment programs - "touchy-feely" - approaches, have beentried, and are very well attended,but they are really not the domainof in-service correctional trainingprograms. But this responsedoesidentify a need. Here is a list ofprogyams offered two years agothat were heavily attended.(Attachment #1)

These more abstract values andconcepts, these enrichmentresources could be the doorthrough which higher educationcan start to address conection stafflearning needs, for the currentplaceofpost-secondaryeducationis with attracting the individual.Institutional and departmentaltraining and personnel structuresmay be the access route, but theindividual must be sold on theprogram's relevance and itslogistical and methodologicalalignment with his/her scheduleand abilities. This is a consumerdemand. If a college is sensitive,these issues will start identifyingthemselves.

Higher educationwhere is itsplace? Although it is a standardrefrain, the answer is so plain thatit is invisible. I hesitate to say thisbecause it ibas been used recentlyas a reason to absolve society andits institutions of the obligation tofacilitate. Responsibility lies withthe individual learner, for at thistime it is beyond the grasp of thetraining departments andcorrectional institutions. The twomajor reasons for theseconclusions on my part, are the

57

61

different sides of the same coin.One person is that many staff,both recruits as well as those onthe job, sometimes really needbasic skills training and are notequipped to go to college.Secondly education is genera lly alinear approach contributed tothis skill deficit in the first place.If this population could succeedin standard academic antics, notto mention the bureaucraticacrobatics, they most likely wouldnot be working in this field in thefirst place. This disinheritance byeducation, of learning styles, doesnot promote a positive self-imagethat theserisk-takersneed in orderto do society's dirty work.

The public perception of theprison guard is that of a base,corrupt, unfeeling "lardass" whopromotes disorder among theprison population. How many ofus buy into this simplisticexplanation fora complex group?This rejection can be mutual, for Ihave seen very little interest onthe part of the correction officerunions to promote training oreducation although there is atuition reimbursement section inthe contract. Generally, theunion's concern is with the highereducation of its members'children with scholarships andthe like, so that the children donot end up doing what mom ordad do.

Symbiosis is a close associa tion oftwo dissimilar entities for thebenefit of both. Lewis Thomas isa research pathologist whom TomWolf called one of the bestphilosophers of our time. Manyof his essays focus on dichotomiesand the acknowledgement that itis through broad-basedperspectives, not provincialspecialization, that we movecloser to actually working witheach other. For now Them is the

refrain of the blameless; thosehelpless to anything. I alwaysheard; 'They did it - why can'tthose correction officers behave?"The inmates say it is that judge,those cops. So we have correctionsofficers, higher education andinmates; have !named a blamelessgroup yet? Page smith, in hisbook, reviews the historicaldevelopment of higher educationand does not find it blameless -the old law school joke, ofsharpening our focus bynarrowing our vision is a dangerwe face without expanding ourmethodology.

Thomas gi ves us grea t hope whenhe predicts that futuredisciplines,as yet unnamed, will pursueunifying discovery.

If we can inform, empower andequi p the jailer, tha t in turn can bepassed on. If we take steps to seethe value of non-traditionallearners, then we can tap it. Thetime is upon us for the spiritedinclusion of alliances and notalienations.

So how do we get together?Marketing. Schools have a servicefor sale. For the con sumer there isan interest in what quality theproduct has and consumers arenot inclined to purchase productsthat do not suit the needs. Andwhat are those needs? Certainlythe more reflecdve cou rses, a s wellas creative skill-building. Let megive you an example o f marketing:I went to Boston University Schoolof Education. I was at the timeenrolled in a course in anothergraduate school with thepossibility of admissioncontingent upon cond itions. I sawa notice for a graduate programdesigned specifically for humanservice and criminal justicepersonnel offered by BostonUniversity. It was posted on the

Muiona( Conference on Cori-taunts & Nigher 'Education

personnel bulletin board at theprison. It was probably sent tothe personnel office. Beinginterested, I found somebody whohad previously gone to thisprogram and receivedconfirmation that this was a goodproduct. After entering theprogram I told a friend who, inturn, enrolled in the next cycle ofthe program. It wasan interestingprogram. I got some real basictools for human service issues andwas certainly satisfied. Theprogram was designed verytightly. Enrollment was forspecific, pre-determined courses,a listing of which was part of theinitial brochure.

The people who enrolled at thesame time I did, ended up in thesame cycle and a semester later, anew cycle was begun. Because ofthe high volume and specificityof the program, a lower tuitioncost was possible, offering theprogram at far below retail cost. Irecently talked to Dr. SteveEllenwood, the chairman of theDepartment tha t ran the programat Boston University. With somepride, he recalled the fact thatmany people who wantedadvanced certification found anopportunity through thisprogram to get that. Beingpackaged programs, they weremore reasonable in price than ageneral tuition cost for similarprograms and were paid upfront.It was sink or swim. This is thetype of experience risk-takers like.

This program was a co-production of the MassachusettsInstitute for Human ServicePrograms (MIHSP) and BostonUniversity School of Education,Department of Social Educationwith courses pre-selected,coordinated, and marketed byMIHSP This program wascanna., It was designed and

58

6 2

delivered in such a way as toutilize on-staff faculty andrecruited students directly fromoccupations such as policeofficers, correction personnel,probation personnel, and juvenilejustice personnel basicallycriminal justice/human serviceprogram personnel. These peoplehad common interests andprofessionally identified witheach other in many ways. Andthey all had a desire to getthemselves some advancedacademic certification.

More recently I interviewedJoseph Boston, an administratorat Cambridge College inCambridge, Massachusetts. I

talked to him on the phone. Myinterest in the program and theschool was sparked by the factthat approximately 50 percent ofthe people who I knew wereattending graduate schoolworking in the Department ofCorrection, were attendingCambridgeCollege. Theprogramthat they were attending was aprogram of counseling andadministrative training,culminating in a Master's inEducation. I asked Mr. Boston ifhe had any statistics on thenumber of people enrolled in hisprogram who worked incorrections. He told me he had nofiguresonexactfieldspeoplecamefrom, but most of them wereworking in administrative andprofessional jobs in both theprivate and public sectors. I askedhim about the three things I amconcerned with as a potentialconsumer of an academicprogram including 1) theprogram content, 2) the programstructure, and 3) the programmarketing. The program contentis similar to what one wouldexpect from classes in othercolleges, focussing on skillproficiencies, such as techniques

NotionriComferawe cm Corrections er Niger Education

in counseling and principlesthereof, methods of research,management technologies. Alongthose lines is basically what Iexpected his program to beoffering. When we started talkingabout the structure of his program,that is where he diverged fromthe academic norm. His focuswas in the utilization of adultlearning theories, basing thedelivery of the curriculum on theshared experiences of the fieldprofessionals who were hisstudents. Thus, the curriculumwas very interactive andsomewhat student driven.Program delivery rather thancontent was different, yet I thinkthat if I had investigated further,I would find some majordifferences in content also.

The third force is marketing and Iasked him about that. I have seensome very eye-catching, veryaggressive advertisements for hisprograms listed in the learningpages of the Boston Globe. WhenI had sent away for his catalogawhile back, I got the catalog, apersonal letter, as well as a follow-up phonecall offering to evenconduct outreach or briefingsessions to any number ofprofessionals that I could muster.He stated that a big focus of hismarketing for enrollment, was thisoutreach that he and his staff did.I asked him about yields by wordof mouth advertising. Hisconservative estimate was that 40percent of new enrollees hear fromsomebody else who had alreadyparticipated in the progam. I

believe that this is a widely under-rated issue in an academicprogram's success - the simpleprocess of getting people topurchase your service. I thinkthat needs to beexamined further.I remember one of the first collegesI attened, people were quit ting onthe first day, deciding not to go

through the rigorsof registration.Certainly we have taken greatstrides since that time, but still, itremains an issue.

EXERCISE #2

This is where you, as learners,must contribute. I have brokenyou up into groups, or you'vebroken yourselves up into groups,basically. You havechosen whereto sit with some prompting. If myattempt to apply Ned Herrmann'stheory succeeded, then we aregrouped in pods of similarlearning propensities and as suchwe may be more proficient in ourexecution of assignments thatrequire the utilization of ourstrengths.

I would ask that this group overhere, our A Group whom we willidenti fy as Left Hemispheric BrainLearners, have a very research-oriented approach and discoverthrough fact-based inquiry. I askthem to discussand list whatkindsof programming, what kinds ofcourses, or what kindsof focus anacademic program aimed atcorrection workers should have.Content issues. See if you canaddress content issues for a futureacademic program.

According to Mr. Herrmann'stheory, he would say the B Group,if my test is valid, consists of LeftEmphatic System Learners withgood organizational skills. Andso I should ask these people whoma y have a knack for organizationand organizational skills toidentify factors that they havediscovered or factors that theyknow about the needs of studentsand the needs of academicprograms and see if we can workout some sort of schedule orcontext type of statement or list.And we will just take a look atthat in a few minutes.

59

6

Now our C Group over here, wewill give you the glamorousaspects. We'll make you MadisonAvenue. You tell us how we cansell these programs. How we canget the content, and the contextout into the field and soughtafter,popularized, pursued andpurchased.

And this last group, our D Group,are people who are RightHemispheric Dominant learners,assume the role of consumer, thepersons who need the collegedegree, who need a Mastersdegree, who need a PhD for theirown personal or professionalreasons. For their careerdevelopment. For one reason oranother, they want to get moreacademics. Tell us what yourneeds are. Tell us content, context,and access. See if you can tie it alltogether in a more generalstatement. We're looking forspecifics here and general there.Is it fair? I digress.

A-Group participants identifiedtheir CommunicationCriminology Counseling/Interview skills.

B-Group proposed programstructures that includedconvenience for student includingboth time and location.Co:laborative efforts withcorrection administration andunion as far as defraying cost,monetary incentive, and careerdevelopment opportunities.

C-Group got sidetracked oncethey started talking to each other.Highly interpersonal response isnot a surprise from this group, soother sections of this paperexplored this issue of marketing.

D-Group response included thosementioned by groups A and B:ethics, promotion, affordability,

and convenience. Theyexpandedto include relevance, respect, andstructure so that most work wasdone in class.

CONTENT, DESIGN ANDMARKETING OF

PROGRAMS

As far as content is concerned, golook at the needs these workershave. Let's develop and utilizeskill-building curriculum so as tobroaden our customer-base.Holistic issues may be another, aswell as more standard academicsubject matter.

The marketing is where some ofyour most importantresponsibilities, as educators, lieas far as at least getting people tocome in the door. You have toadvertise, you have to sell aproduct and you have to have astrategy on how to sell thatproduct. We will talk a bit moreabout designing a product in aminute. You want to develop amarketing strategy for youracademic programs. You have aproduct to deliver, you have aresponsibility to educate and ifyou want to educate people whowork in corrections, you need toreach out to them. That's how Iand others discovered programs.Once outreach is used, and if youhave addressed the other issues,of form and content, then theprogram will start to grow legs ofits own. Advertising serves justto enha nce that, to keep bolsteringyour sales or your enrollment. Ithink, initially, you need to reachout to those factions you want.My advice: send yourannouncements with a personalnote off to training instructors atvariou s institutions, to the trainingdepartment, or to the personneldepartment. Then follow-up witha personal phone call. This enablesyou to get an idea of what they are

Viionat Conference on Corrections & Higher Elucation

looking for, so that, with somesimple adjustments in yourprogram, you can make it muchmore attractive. Again, thispersonal contact is important,reaching out and finding out whatneeds are out there, specificallyfor the area.

As far as design is concerned, thisis where we talk about the whalebrain learning issues. The productshould be such that the studentcan identify with the program.The presentation of informationmust be in forms where all canfind it learnable. This involvessetting up some principals for howthe material will be presented. Iattended a conference not so longago on Juvenile Jusfice Servicesprograms for helping kids. Therewasa gentleman who presented apaper on "drop out prevention."What he advocated was that thecurriculum should be alive, notstunted, not just reading of booksor someone presenting materialin a monologue fashion. Underhis breath he said "as I am doingnow." And I said to myself - whyare you doing it if you don't thinkit is a way that peoplecomprehend? Or, why are youdoing it this way if you know it isnot the best way to do it? I guesswe have to become entertainersas educators. But I think that theacquisition of knowledge shouldbe somewhat educating,fascinating, entertaining- shouldhave music - should have bellsand whistles. Students should beinvolved, they should be includedin the design and execution of thecurriculum. The educator shouldbe the director of the productionwith learning as a participatorysport, not a spectator sport.

From a training point of view, Ican see that people respond moreexuberantly where they do roleplays, as well as practice run-

60

4

throughs of a drill or procedure.They have fun with this and theyretain it better.

I am excited thinking that bothfields have much to offer eachother. Corrections has what mytrainees and staff call ALexperience - real life experience,real life training. Corrections hasaccess to or accumulations ofmassive amounts of data on avariety of issues relative tocriminal behavior and themanagement of people whobehave in such a way. Also froma more pragmatic point of view,in the age of dwindlinggovernment employee payrolls,correction budgets in general arenot dwindling. Payroll figures orpersonnel numbers for correctiondepartments may be shifting,butcertainly are not decreasing. Sothere is a rich resource of peoplewho probably could benefit fromsome in-depth study on issues ofparticular importance to this field.We are basically managers of highsecuritycommunities and a wholerange of studies would begermane and relevant for variouspersonnel in the correctionalsystem, depending upon theirduties and interests and jobresponsibilities. I truly and firmlybelieve that increased trainingsand increased education levels ofpersonnel in correctionalenvironments only serve toenhance the quality of treatmentthat the inmate populationreceives. It further enables thepersonnel to come to grips withdifficult situations both morallyand philosophically, as well as inpractical and psychological terms.So for corrections, education hasa wide range of resources to beoffered. Certainly it is no secrettha t the bottom line in correctionsis the use of naked force in inmatemanagement, and that bottom linehas to be reached on occasions. I

NotioNat Coetfatut at Cana:ions & Higha Education

think the number of occasions canbe impacted by the level ofsophistication; by the level ofeducation or moral, ethicalexploration done on the part ofthe personnel. It is somethingthat highereducation can provide.

I am somewhat concerned by thepublic perception of correctionsand how that impacts theacademic perception ofcorrectional personnel. I thinkthat in the current spirit ofinclusion we should be carefulnot to exclude in our rush toinclude.

I believe that there are particulargroups that exert significantinfluence on the socialdevelopment of large segmentsof our population or at least onpronounced segments of ourpopulation. Certainly primaryand secondary educators arepeople in that group. Alsocorrection personnel are included.Fancying myself to be an educator,I have often adopted the view ofmy role as a correction worker, tobe that of a social education agenthying to establish an educationalapproach to the treatment ofincarcerated individuals.

I am again reminded of LewisThomas' essays. I find them verycomforting, very relaxing, veryenjoyable to read. He talks aboutthe concept "symbiosis," startingfrom a biological, concrete pointof view and bringing it up to theabstract level. If we can give anycredence to the notion of peoplepossessing different learningpropensities, and we certainlyknow that people are different,then we start thinking in terms ofpeople's value and respect. Wecan ask people to identify howthey function (encourage peopleto do what they do well and like)and in doing so, bestow upon the

person respect and aresponsibility to utilize thoseparticular skills. In doing this, wehave developed a system wherepeople can be different but worktogether. Here, the differenceswe cause for celebration ratherthan fuel for conflict. I think wemight be getting there. And in thegoing is another idea that attractsme to Thomas. In academics, thereis evolution and there is yetunnamed disciplines ou t there forus to cast ourselves into. If westart applying economic ways ofdiscoveringinformation together,and respecting individualdifferences, maybe fun can be adominant as well as productiveforce in our lives. I advocatereducing our need forstandardization and emphasizingthe acceleration of discovery.Basically, everybody has got anopinion. Canons vs. politicalcorrectness. The Germanacademic model on Americanhigher education. John Kotter andEd Herrmann see untappedresources because of our lockedfocus on models that havepreviously worked, but whoseeffectiveness can be enhanced byopening up and including morestyles and a broader focus. JohnKotter talksa lot about leadershipvs. management and that today'sAmerican work culture is verymuch focused on the value ofmanagement, which is not to bediminished, yet does not fulfillthe issue of leadership. He goeson to talk about the concept ofleadership as being inclusionary.People participate at differentlevelsof this socioeconomic entity,whetlwr it be a school or a prisonor a factory or some other sort ofindustry. When peopleunderstand,and feel included andvital through outreach, that iswhen things move. Pleasefacilitate the human resource tobelieve in itself and its efforts.

61

Notional Conference on Corrections & Vfigher Education

ATTACHMENT 1

HOLISTIC HEALTH PROGRAM: FOR A HAPPIER, HEALTHIER YOUBODY, MIND SPIRIT

At the Department of Correction Training Academy, see your Training Officer for details.

Course Title

Minding the Body, Mending the MindForgiveness: A Shrewd & Practical StrategyPositive & Loving RelationshipsGood Feelings SeminarThe Practice of Conflict ResolutionCreating Trust in Difficult Relationships: Neuro-Linguistic ProgrammingTreat Yourself to Vitality... Through YogaHealing RelationshipsToward a New Way of Men Relating to One AnotherShiatsu Massage: An Introductory WorkshopHindsight is 20/20: If Only I Knew Then What I Know NowPsychosynthesis: Working With Inner ConflictUnderstanding the Difference Between Men & WomenHealth MaintenanceLost in the Shuffle: Co-DependencyCaring for Your Body, Mind & SpiritWhat Your Handwriting Reveals About YouReducing Self PunishmentPromises and Perils of the Path: Spiritual EmergenceHow to be Powerful in Communicating: Conflict ResolutionWalking on Eggshells & Waiting for the Other Shoe to Drop: ACOA or the Experience of Growing up in aDysfunctional FamilyHealing of the Body, Mind & Spirit: Using the Tools of Yoga, Chi-Kung, Reiki & Therapeutic MassageThe Power of Personal DirectionRisking to be Known: Revealing the Essential SelfBuilding Intimacy in a RelationshipCounter Hypnosis

REFERENCES

Golden, Daniel, Undermanned and Vulnerable, BostonGlobe Magazine, July 30, 1989.

Herrmann, Ned: "Brain DominanceTechnology," Trainingand Development Handbook. Robert L. Craig, Ed.;McGraw Hill Co, 1987.

Kotter, John P., A Force for Change: How LeadershipDiffers From Management, The Free Press, 1990.

Smith, Page, Killing the Spirit: Education in America;Viking Press, 1990.

Thomas, LeWis, Late Night Thought on Listening toMahler's Ninth Symphony, Viking Press, 1983.

Thomas, Lewis, The Medusa and The Snail: More Notesof a Biology Watcher, Viking Press, 1979.

62

E G

Copyright 1993

TRAINING RESOURCE CENTERCollege of Law EnforcementEastern Kentucky University

449 Stratton BuildingRichmond, Kentucky 40475-3131

Phone (606) 622-6282Fax (606) 622-6264

6'7