Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be ... · 2 juvenile Ohio 45,833 270% 406 26...

DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 467 044 UD 035 129

AUTHOR Lawrence, Sarah; Mears, Daniel P.; Dubin, Glenn; Travis,Jeremy

TITLE The Practice and Promise of Prison Programming. ResearchReport.

INSTITUTION Urban Inst., Washington, DC. Justice Policy Center.SPONS AGENCY Joyce Foundation, Chicago, IL.PUB DATE 2002-05-00NOTE 31p.; For other reports in the Research for Safer Communities

project, see ED 449 239, UD 034 780, UD 034 904, and UD 034951. Contains small print.

AVAILABLE FROM Urban Institute, 2100 M Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20037.Tel: 202-833-7200; Fax: 202-429-0687; Web site:http:/ /www.urban.org. For full text:http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/410493_PrisonProgramming.pdf.

PUB TYPE Reports Research (143)EDRS PRICE EDRS Price MF01/PCO2 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS *Correctional Education; Correctional Institutions;

Correctional Rehabilitation; Employment Potential; *JobSkills; Outcomes of Education; *Prisoners; *ProgramEffectiveness; Vocational Education

ABSTRACT

This study focused on employment-related programs in prison,exploring what the research literature tells about the effectiveness ofprison-based education, vocational training, and prison industry onpostrelease outcomes. Also studied was the state of practice of such programsand strategic opportunities for improving existing employment-related programsand introducing new programs in prison. Following a review of evaluationresearch on the effectiveness of education and work-related programs, aninventory of programs in seven states in the Great Lakes region was conducted.Based on the literature review, state profiles, and interviews withcorrectional administrators and experts, strategic recommendations weredeveloped to improve and enhance prison programming. A conference oncorrectional programming in September 2001 afforded an additional opportunityto obtain views and research on such programs. Fewer than 15% of inmatesreceive programming that addresses their educational needs. The workexperience and skills of inmates are well below those of the generalpopulation, and, overall educational and vocational prison programming hasdeclined for a combination of economic reasons and growth in the number ofinmates. The preliminary findings highlight the need for a much moresystematic assessment of these issues, but they do suggest that researchershave developed important groundwork in the area of correctional programming.There are core principles that effective programming should reflect. The gapbetween programming need and resources appears to be considerable, butopportunities for improving and enhancing correctional programming do exist.(Contains 2 figures, 5 tables, and 32 references.) (SLD)

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

The Practice and Pro 'seof Prison Program *ng

Sarah LawrenceDaniel P. MearsGlenn DubinJeremy Travis

research for safer communities.

BEST COPY AVAIL LE

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice of Educational Research and Improvement

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)

This document has been reproduced asreceived from the person or organizationoriginating it.

Minor changes have been made toimprove reproduction quality.

Points of view or opinions stated in thisdocument do not necessarily representofficial OERI position or policy.

PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE ANDDISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS

BEEN GRANTED BY

S. arrloTL 11404, 1141

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)

1

11.)

OO

lid URBAN INSTITUTElum Justice Policy Center

Contents

I. INTRODUCTION 1 VIII. REFERENCES 26

II. BACKGROUND 2 IX. STATE SOURCES 28

Highlights 2

Prison Growth 2

Prison Programming 3

III. REVIEW OF EVALUATION LITERATURE ONCORRECTIONAL PROGRAMS 4

Highlights 4

Conceptual Framework 4

Challenges of Program Implementation 7

Prison Programming Can Work 7

Methodological Problems Make It Difficultto Identify Specific Programs that "Work" 8

Effective Programs Share Similar Characteristics 9

IV. PRISON PROGRAMMING:INVENTORIES IN SEVEN STATES 12

Highlights 12

An Overview of Program Types 12

Educational Programs 13

Vocational Programs 14

Prison Industries 16

Employment Services Programs 17

Participation Rates in Prison Programming 18

V. STRATEGIC OPPORTUNITIES FORIMPROVING AND EXPANDINGCORRECTIONAL PROGRAMMING 20

Highlights 20

Opportunities to Change Policies 20

Opportunities to Change Practices 21

Opportunities to Improve Research 22

VI. KEY POLICY TARGETS 23

State Agencies 24

Colleges and Local School Districts 24

Federal Agencies 24

Non-Governmental Organizations 24

Private Companies 24

VII. CONCLUSION 25

URBAN INSTITUTEJustice Policy Center2100 M STREET, NWWASHINGTON, DC 20037www.urban.org

The views expressed are those of the authors, and should not beattributed to The Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.

3

I. INTRODUCTION'

With increasing numbers of prisoners being re-leased into society, the issue of prison programminghas become a critical policy issue. As a result, poli-cymakers and practitioners need information aboutthe effectiveness of prison-based programming, thetypes and levels of programming currently available,and the opportunities and policy targets for improv-ing and expanding effective prison programming.

With the goal of illuminating these issues, this reportfocuses specifically on employment-related programs inprison and addresses the following questions:

1. What does the evaluation research literature tell usabout the effectiveness of prison-based education,vocational training, and prison industry on post-release outcomes?

2. What is the state of practice of education, voca-tional training, prison industry, and employ-ment/transitional training in prison?

3. What are the strategic opportunities for improvingexisting employment-related programs and intro-ducing new programs in prison?

To answer these questions, the Urban Institutefirst conducted a review of evaluation research on theeffectiveness of education and work-related pro-grams. In this report, we refer to these programscollectively as prison or correctional programs.

The Urban Institute conducted an inventory ofprograms in seven states in the Great Lakes region.These states were selected to illustrate the types andlevels of programming in states within a similar re-gion. Our goal was not to provide a national inven-tory of prison programming, or a systematic analysisof regional differences in programming. Rather, itwas to explore and highlight the potential for consid-erable state-level variation and, as importantly, toidentify the extent to which information on prisonprogramming is readily available. In short, we ex-amine these seven states to draw some general les-sons that may be relevant to an understanding ofprison programming nationally.

This inventory covered employment-related cor-rectional programs and was based on interviews withkey stakeholders and extant information sources,such as annual reports from correctional agencies andnational surveys of corrections agencies.

Based on the review, state profiles, and inter-views with correctional administrators and experts, wepresent strategic opportunities for improving and en-hancing prison programming. A conference held atGeorge Washington University, entitled "CorrectionalEducation and Training: Raising the Stakes" (Sep-tember 24, 2001), afforded the authors an additionaland unique opportunity to obtain up-to-date views andresearch on correctional programming.

The focus on prison programming is timely be-cause of the dramatic increases in prison populationsand the large increases in offenders released intosociety. Currentlyand to anticipate the conclusionof this reportrelatively little is known about whichspecific programs work and for whom, especially inrelation to employment outcomes. In addition, rela-tively little is known about the extent to which orwhat types of correctional programming are offered.

Our preliminary review highlights the need for amuch more systematic assessment of these issues.However, it also suggests that researchers have de-veloped important groundwork in the area of correc-tional programming. There are core principles thateffective programming should reflect. Our reviewsuggests that the gap between programming need andresources is considerable. Few states come close toproviding the levels and quality of programming thatresearch indicates are needed to positively impactemployment or other outcomes. Finally, practitionersindicate that opportunities, such as engaging private-sector businesses and building strategic partnershipswith local and state agencies, currently exist for im-proving and enhancing correctional programming.However, these opportunities vary depending on theunique context of corrections and correctional pro-gramming in specific states.

Grateful acknowledgment is extended to the Joyce Foundation for funding and supporting the creation of this report, and to the practitionersand officials who agreed to be interviewed, including: Lowell Brandt, Iowa Department of Corrections; John Castro, Illinois Department ofCorrections; Gary Grueter, Wisconsin Department of Corrections; Carolyn Heier, Indiana Department of Corrections; Rich Johnson, Michi-gan Department of Corrections; Scott Olson, Minnesota Department of Corrections; Edward Rhine, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation andCorrections; Mindy Tarlow, Center for Employment Opportunities; Charles Terry, University of Michigan-Flint; and Diane Williams, TheSafer Foundation. The authors alone bear responsibility for all statements of fact and interpretation.


4

II. BACKGROUND

HighlightsNationally, and in the seven states examined in thisstudy, prison populations have doubled to quadrupledin size between 1978 and 1998.

Approximately half of all state and federal inmateshave high school diplomas, compared with three-fourths of the general population. Fewer than 15 per-cent of inmates receive programming that addressestheir educational needs.

The work experiences and skills of inmates are wellbelow those of the general population. This fact,combined with barriers to employment upon release,significantly impair long-term employment prospectsfor ex offenders.

Participation in prison-based vocational programmingdeclined from 31 to 27 percent between 1991 and1997. Participation in education programming de-clined even more, from 42 to 35 percent, during thissame period.

Educational and vocational prison programming hasdeclined in part because of the rapid growth in pris-ons, the frequent transferring of offenders from onefacility to another, decreased federal funding forhigher education programs, and greater interest inshort-term substance abuse treatment and anger man-agement programs.

Prison Growth

Before proceeding to a discussion of the effective-ness, levels, and opportunities for prison program-ming, we present descriptive information at a na-tional level and for the seven states on the stateprison systems we examined. This information,which includes prison populations, prison growth,and incarceration rates, highlights two key issues:the sizable population of offenders in the UnitedStates and the dramatic growth in corrections experi-enced nationally and in each of the selected states.

As table 1 shows, the number of individuals inprison has been increasing over the past two decades.Nationally, the adult prison population more thantripled between 1978 and 1998, growing from307,276 to 1,299,096 inmates.

All seven states that we investigated have wit-nessed significant growth in the prison population overthe past two decades. Minnesota, whose incarceratedpopulation grew 185 percent between 1978 and 1998,experienced the least growth. Despite the dramaticgrowth in prison populations, six of the seven states fellbelow the national average (323 percent). Only Wis-consin's adult prison population, which grew over 440percent, was higher.

Incarceration rates per 100,000 adults also haverisen dramatically during the past two decades. How-ever, as with overall growth in prison populations, six of

Table 1. Overview of Prison Systems, 2000

Total adult andjuvenile prison

populationa

Adult prisonpopulation growth

(1978-1998)bIncarceration rate

per 100,000aNumber offacilities`

U.S. total 1,381,892 323% 478Illinois 45,821 282% 371 21 adult

8 juvenile

Indiana 20,125 290% 335 24 adult10 juvenile

Iowa 7,955 273% 276 9 adult and juvenile

Michigan 47,718 207% 480 42 prisons13 prison camps

Minnesota 6,238 185% 128 8 adult2 juvenile

Ohio 45,833 270% 406 26 adult5 juvenile

Wisconsin 20,612 442% 376 33 adult5 juvenile

Sources:a. Prisoners in 2000. Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin.b. National Prisoner Statistics data series (NPS-1). "Prisoners Under State or Federal Jurisdiction." Bureau of Justice Statistics.c. Based on interviews and state publications.


the seven states examined in this study had incarcera-tion rates well below the national average of 478 in2000. Only Ohio's and Michigan's incarceration rates(406 and 480, respectively) approximated this rate.

In short, both nationally and in the seven se-lected states, the prison populations have grown dra-matically during the past two decades. The result hasbeen an expansion in the number of prison facilitiesto the point where even the smallest of the stateprison systems, Minnesota, now operates 10 prisonfacilities. The largest prison systems, Michigan andOhio, operate close to 90 facilities combined.

Prison Programming

It is well documented that the education level,work experience, and skills of prisoners are well belowthe averages for the general population (Andrews andBonata 1994). The 1992 National Adult Literacy Sur-vey (NALS) established that only 51 percent of allstate and federal prisoners had their high school di-ploma (LoBuglio 2001). The national average for thegeneral population is 76 percent. In this same study,11 percent of inmates, compared with three percent ofgeneral population respondents, self-reported having alearning disability.

The difference between prison and general popu-lations in education levels appears to be driven pri-marily by a combination of sex, age, and racial char-acteristics unique to prisons: Namely, most prisonersare "overwhelmingly young, minority males with ahigher percentage of high school dropouts and a lowerpercentage of college experiences than the generalpopulation" (LoBuglio 2001, p. 121). Nationally, asLoBuglio (2001) notes, between 7 and 15 percent ofinmates receive basic adult education classes, which isfar below the extent of need.

The work experience and skills of prisoners alsotypically are well below that of the general popula-tion (Travis, Solomon, and Waul 2001). The lack ofwork experience and skills, when combined with loweducation levels and difficulties in obtaining em-ployment upon release, can contribute to a cycle ofunemployment that increases the likelihood of furthercriminal behavior (Austin and Irwin 2001).

Despite a long-standing historical emphasis inAmerican corrections on education and employmenttraining (Piel 1998; Gaes et al. 1999), and despite theimportance of prison programming for improving arange of outcomes upon release, levels of programparticipation have declined. In 1991, 42 percent ofsoon-to-be-released prisoners (less than 12 monthsremaining) reported participating in education pro-grams, compared with 35 percent in 1997 (figure 1).

ST COPY AVAILABLE

Participation in vocational programs declined from31 percent to 27 percent during this same period(Lynch and Sabol 2001).

One reason for these declines is the rapid andenormous growth in prisons. Funding for correc-tional programs has not kept pace with populationgrowth, which has led to a reduction in the number ofprograms aimed at helping prisoners, such as generalliteracy and higher education programs, in most stateprison systems (Austin and Irwin 2001; Slambrouck2000). Higher education programming was all buteliminated by federal legislation enacted in 1994(LoBuglio 2001).

The decrease in correctional programming alsois attributable to an indirect effect of the rapid growthin prisons and the shuffling of prisoners from onefacility to another. This frequent transferring under-mines the ability of prisons to implement effectiveeducational and vocational programs. At the sametime, and precisely because of the frequent transfer-ring of prisoners from one facility to another, greaterattention and interest have been given to fundingsubstance abuse and anger management programs.One reason is that these programs can be offered on ashort-term basis and can be relatively inexpensivecompared with educational or vocational training(LoBuglio 2001).

In summary, prison populations have grown sig-nificantly while funding for programs and participa-tion rates have declined. These changes are signifi-cant because, as the literature review below shows,educational and vocational training can contribute toa range of positive outcomes, including increasedemployment and reduced recidivism.

Figure 1. Prisoners to Be Released in the Next 12 Months:Percentage Participating in Prison Programs, 1991 and 1997

Educational

Vocational

0% 10%

Source: Lynch and Sabol (2001).

20% 30%

1991 cohort931997 cohort

40% 50%


III. REVIEW OF EVALUATION LITERATURE ON CORRECTIONAL PROGRAMS

What does the evaluation research literature tell usabout the effectiveness of prison-based education,vocational training, and prison industry on post-release outcomes?

HighlightsIn general, correctional programs can increase post-release employment and reduce recidivism, providedthe programs are well designed and implemented.

A range of methodological limitations preclude anyassessment of direct and unequivocal beneficial ef-fects of prison programming.

Promising programs in terms of post-release outcomesinclude general characteristics, what also might becalled principles of effective intervention:

focusing on skills applicable to the job market

matching offenders' needs with program offerings

ensuring that participation is timed to be close toan offender's release date

providing programming for at least several months

targeting offenders' needs that are changeable andmay contribute to crime, such as attitudes andpro-social activities

providing programs that cover each individual'sneeds and are well integrated with other prisonprograms to avoid potential redundancy or conflictacross programs

ensuring that prison programming is followed bytreatment and services upon release from prison

relying on effective program design,implementation, and monitoring

involving researchers in programs as evaluators

In this section, we summarize the results of recentreviews and meta-analyses of correctional program-ming. Meta-analysis is an analytical approach thatsystematically and rigorously identifies the results of awide range of studies bearing on a specific topic. Un-like conventional reviews, which can be subject to theunintended or intended biases of authors and the in-ability to summarize succinctly and empirically theevidence for or against various programs, meta-analyses rely on quantitative techniques that examinespecific characteristics of studies and programs (Glass1976; Cullen and Gendreau 2000). As a result, theygenerally provide a much better and more scientifi-cally defensible basis for answering the question,"What works?"

Although some meta-analyses of prison pro-gramming exist, they do not capture the full range ofcurrently available programming or research. Forexample, many studies do not report sufficient infor-mation about the research or program design to beincluded in a meta-analysis. Also, for some types ofprogramming (e.g., transitional/pre-release program-ming), there are too few studies to allow a meta-analysis to be conducted. For this reason, the reviewbelow draws on both meta-analyses and reviews tosummarize what is known about the effectiveness ofprison programming, as defined in this report.

Before proceeding to the literature review, weprovide a conceptual framework for understandingthe justification for prison programming, historicallyand from a research perspective, and how prison pro-gramming is believed to affect various outcomes.The research literature on the effectiveness of correc-tional programs often stresses the complexity of thechallenge involved in improving outcomes for peopleheld in prison and released back into the community.The conceptual framework is useful for demonstrat-ing this complexity and also for highlighting the un-derlying logic for prison programming.

Conceptual FrameworkPrison programming in the United States histori-

cally was predicated on the notion that individualizededucational and vocational instruction would help ex-offenders to lead successful lives (Austin and Irwin2001; LoBuglio 2001). Despite declines in prison pro-gramming in recent decades, this justification for prisonprogramming still remains a part of prison operationstoday. The justification is symbolized in part by reten-


tion of the term "corrections," which, as originally con-ceived, reflected the idea that offenders could be "cor-rected" or rehabilitated. In recent decades, researchershave shown that prison programming can indeed con-tribute to a range of positive outcomes. Unfortunately,and as discussed below, much of this research still re-mains focused on single outcomes (e.g., recidivism) andsuffers from flawed methodological designs.

One difficulty in assessing various programs isthat they frequently do not state explicitly the theo-retical foundations for anticipating various impacts.For this reason, it can be difficult to determine howexactly a given program is supposed to lead to a par-ticular outcome or what broader goal it is supposed toachieve. However, our analysis of recent reviewssuggests a broad-based conceptual framework un-derlying most prison programming efforts. Thisframework is outlined in figure 2 to provide a contextwithin which to situate the review of programmingprovided in the subsequent discussion.

Conceptual Framework: Step-by-Step

The first box in figure 2 depicts the reality thatindividuals come into prison with a set of individualcharacteristics that must be taken into account whenconsidering the development of programmatic inter-ventions. Prisoners present individual profiles that

reflect their prior work experience, health conditions,life skills, criminal record, and demographic charac-teristics. This human capital profile presents uniquechallenges to the design, implementation, and effec-tiveness of correctional programs.

The second (top) box depicts the range of prisonprograms offered to help prepare prisoners for lifeafter prison. Four categories of prison programs arediscussed later in this report: educational/academicinstruction, vocational training, prison industries, andemployment/transitional training. Yet these are notthe only programs offered to prisoners. Correctionsagencies also offer life skills training (e.g., obtaininghousing, balancing checkbooks, maintaining appro-priate interpersonal relationships), mental healthtreatment, substance abuse treatment, faith-basedprograms, and other types of interventions. Evaluat-ing the effectiveness of one of these interventions isthus complicated by the fact that a prisoner may par-ticipate in more than one program, making it difficultto attribute outcomes to a single intervention.

Researchers hypothesize that the overall climateand culture of a prison, including the effectiveness ofits programs, may be correlated with successful out-comes after the prisoner's release. In this view, thesuccess of prison managers in inculcating pro-socialbehaviors among prisoners may be as important as

Figure 2. Conceptual Framework of Influences on and Outcomes of Individuals Released from Prison

Pre-PrisonCharacteristics

'Work experience'Education level'Health status"Life skills'Criminal record-Demographics

PrisonProgramming

'Academic training'Vocational training'Work experience'Employment services'Life skills training'Mental health treatment-Drug abuse treatment'Faith-based programs .

\....Other programs

Post-ReleaseProgramming

'Academic training' Vocational training'Work experience"Employment services"Life skills training'Mental health treatment' Drug abuse treatment-Faith-based programs'Other programs

Outcomes

'Reduced recidivism'Stable employment'Stable housing'Physical/mental health'Healthy family relationships'Sobriety

Goals

'Public safety'Community cohesion'Community functioning'Ex-offender functioning'Healthy family functioning


BEST COPY AVAILABLE

programmatic offerings (Cullen and Gendreau 2000;Austin and Irwin 2001).

The third (bottom) box describes the array ofpost-release programs found in correctional practice.These programs typically mirror those offered insideprison: educational/academic instruction, vocationaltraining, work experience and life skills training,mental health and drug treatment, etc. The researchliterature underscores the importance of linking pro-grams offered in prison with those offered after re-lease. For example, evaluations of in-prison drugtreatment interventions have found that these inter-ventions by themselves are only moderately effectivein reducing drug use and recidivism. However, whencombined with post-release treatment programs in thecommunity, their effectiveness can be significantlyenhanced (Gaes et al. 1999).

The fourth box describes the outcomes typicallyexpected by administrators of in-prison and post-release programs. These outcomes are viewed as re-sulting directly from both sets of programs, but forprison programs, there is an additional expectation ofan indirect effect operating through post-release pro-gramming. That is, administrators anticipate that of-fenders who receive services while in prison may bemore likely to benefit from post-release programming.

Reduced criminal activity of released offendersis cited in virtually every program design as a keygoal. Accordingly, the evaluation literature generallyfocuses on assessing a program's effectiveness inreducing criminal activity of program participants.Yet other goals frequently are articulated. Employ-ment programs seek to enhance levels of participationin labor markets as well as levels of earnings of pro-gram participants after their release from prison.Similarly, health and drug treatment programs aim toenhance mental and physical health, and, more gen-erally, individual and family functioning. Faith-based programs and others have broader goals ofimproving the quality of life for the prisoner afters/he returns to the community.

These broad and varied goals pose challenges toevaluators and raise important questions about therelative value of different objectives. For example, anemployment program may seek to improve job reten-tion rates and may do that, but it may also improve thequality of a prisoner's family life, an outcome that anevaluation may not capture. Similarly, typical evalua-tions of highly effective drug treatment programs maynot conceptualize effectiveness in terms of improvingjob earnings of prisoners.

The fifth and final box represents some of themost commonly cited long-term goals for individuals

9

released from prison and the families and communi-ties to which they return. According to conventionalwisdom among researchers, policymakers, and crimi-nal justice administrators, these prison programs aredesigned to accomplish broad social goalsto in-crease public safety, enhance community cohesion,and strengthen the functioning of ex-offenders, fami-lies, and communities (e.g., overall socioeconomicconditions). These long-term goals may be realizedthrough achievement of one or more of the outcomeslisted in box four. In many instances, they are diffi-cult to measure but nonetheless set the parameters forjustifying and, ideally, assessing the merits of par-ticular programs.

In summary, prison programs frequently are jus-tified on the grounds that they contribute to a widerange of goals, including improved public safety,greater community cohesion, and improved offenderand family functioning. These goals are thought tobe realized through various outcomes, such as re-duced recidivism, stable offender employment andhousing, improved family interactions, etc. In eachinstance, prison programs are designed to address oneor more areas of need (e.g., education, vocationaltraining, life skills training, mental health and sub-stance abuse treatment) that are believed to contributeto the specific outcomes. And these areas of need inturn are believed to be linked to specific backgroundcharacteristics, such as the age, race, sex, prior rec-ord, previous educational and work experiences ofoffenders, and their mental health and physical statusupon entry into prison.

The Purposes of the Conceptual Framework

This conceptual framework serves two purposes.First, it highlights the complexity of designing andevaluating interventions involving prisoners, wherethe measured outcomes occur after release fromprison. Second, it places in context the scope of theliterature review. Specifically, we reviewed the ex-tant research literature on several categories of prisonprogramming, including educational/academic in-struction, vocational training, prison industries, andemployment/vocational training. It should be empha-sized that in our review, we discovered few studiesthat examine the combined effects of exposure tomultiple programs or the precise benefits associatedwith provision of follow-up services upon releasefrom prison. Thus, research to date largely missesthe major impacts that may (or may not) be associ-ated with prison programming. That said, our reviewof the evaluation literature suggests that in-prisonprogramming can effect a wide range of outcomes


and, in turn, can contribute to an equally wide rangeof longer-term goals (Gaes et al. 1999; Cullen andGendreau 2000; Travis et al. 2001). Here, however,we restrict our review to the impacts of prison pro-gramming on employment outcomes and recidivism.Although we present examples for illustrative pur-poses, we have not compiled an inventory of bestpractices or innovative approaches. For a compre-hensive review of all types of adult correctionaltreatment programs, see Gaes et al. (1999) and Cullenand Gendreau (2000).

Challenges of Program Implementation

A final point should be made before turning toour summary of the evaluation literature. Imple-menting and operating correctional programs presentmany challenges unique to correctional settings(Cullen and Gendreau 2000). These challenges caninfluence not only whether programming is providedbut also whether it is effective. For example, staffturnover can reduce the effectiveness of programs.New staff require considerable training and, withinsufficient training, may expose program partici-pants to inappropriately implemented therapeuticinterventions. Also, prisoners may have pre-existingeducational and professional deficits or suffer fromsubstance abuse and mental health disorders. Im-proving their education level or work experiencealone may not be possible or sufficient to generate anappreciable difference in the likelihood of recidivat-ing or maintaining employment.

At a broader level, prison administrators readilyacknowledge that their top priority is maintainingcontrol of the prison environment to maximize thesafety of guards and prisoners. In an era of prisonexpansion and constraints on prison budgets, allocat-ing space and resources for correctionalprograms isnot the top priority for correctional managers (Traviset al. 2001). Such factors directly affect programmingand are among those most commonly cited by correc-tional officials as barriers to effective programming(Farabee et al. 1999).

Prison Programming Can Work

In presenting a summary of the research literatureon correctional programming, we have drawn exten-sively on four recent, comprehensive reviews of doz-ens of individual program evaluations:

Gerber and Fritsch (1994) performed athorough assessment of research oncorrectional education/academic instruction.

10

Gaes et al. (1999) reviewed the state ofknowledge for all types of adult correctionaltreatment, including education and workprograms, sex offender treatment, andcognitive skills training.

Cullen and Gendreau (2000) reviewed thestate of knowledge for correctional treatment,including a review of recent meta-analysesfrom both the juvenile and adult treatmentliterature and a listing of principles ofeffective programs and interventions.

Wilson and Gallagher (2000) conducted ameta-analysis of the recidivism outcomes of 33studies (which included 53 different programs)of education, vocation, and work programs.

Gerber and Fritsch's (1994) review of the lit-erature concluded that "research shows a fair amountof support for the hypothesis that adult, academic andvocational programs lead to...reductions in recidivismand increases in employment opportunities" (p. 11).Table 2 presents a summary of their major findings.Across several different types of educational pro-gramming, Gerber and Fritsch (1994) found that themajority of studies showed that participants were (a)less likely to recidivate and (b) more likely to beemployed after release.

This conclusion is echoed by the other reviews.Gaes et al. (1999) state: "Despite methodologicalshortcomings and challenges, the evidence suggeststhat carefully designed and administered educationand work programs can...reduce recidivism and pro-mote involvement in pro-social activities after re-lease" (p. 398). They go on to note that "when con-

Table 2. The Effectiveness of CorrectionalProgramming

Pre-college education (elementary/secondary/GED)9 of 14 studies found participants were less likely to recidi-vate3 of 4 studies found participants more likely to be employedafter release

College-level education10 of 14 studies found an inverse relationship between col-lege education and recidivism3 of 3 studies found participants more likely to be employedafter release

Vocational programs9 of 13 studies found participants less likely to recidivate5 of 7 studies found participants more likely to be employedafter release

Source: Gerber and Fritsch (1994).


sidered as a body of developing scientific work onthe impact of prison programs, education and workprograms appear able to contribute significantly toincreasing offenders' prospects for success" (p. 407).

Wilson and Gallagher's (2000) meta-analysis ledto the same conclusion: "This study meta-analyzedthe recidivism outcomes of 33 independent...evaluations of education, vocation, and work pro-grams and found that program participants recidivateat a lower rate than nonparticipants" (p. 347). Cullenand Gendreau (2000) reviewed other meta-analysesand, like Gaes et al. (1999), Gerber and Fritsch(1994), and Wilson and Gallagher (2000), concludedthat correctional programming, when designed andimplemented well, can reduce recidivism and in-crease employment and health outcomes.

Although the different reviews all arrive at thesame conclusionthat is, that correctional program-ming can reduce recidivism and improve employ-ment outcomesthere are important caveats. First,these reviews, like almost all studies to date, usedbroad categories to define "education" and "voca-tional" (or "work") programs. As a result, it is notpossible to identify with any confidence specific pro-grams that are effective. In addition, the articlesidentify numerous qualifications to the general state-ment that correctional programming can work. Yetdespite the many caveats and the lack of informationabout specific programs that are known to be effec-tive, there are general characteristics of program-mingwhat Cullen and Gendreau (2000) call "prin-ciples of effective intervention"that typicallyunderlie effective programs.

Below, we review the most critical methodo-logical problems in assessing the finding that correc-tional programming works. This discussion high-lights the limits of research to date and thepossibilities for future research. We also review arange of general factors (principles of effective inter-vention) that researchers have identified as charac-teristics of effective programs.

Methodological Problems Make It Difficult to Iden-tify Specific Programs that "Work"

Although much research indicates that prisonprogramming can work, there are many caveats andexceptions that preclude a listing of specific "bestpractice" programs. The most critical of these cave-ats and exceptions are discussed below.

First, the most important issue is that methodo-logical flaws in most studies limit the extent to whichresearchers can attribute improved ex-offender out-comes to program activities. As Wilson and Gallagher

Ii

(2000) stated in their meta-analysis of 33 studies, "Thegenerally weak methodological character of thesestudies prevents attributing observed effects on crimi-nal behavior to the activities of programs" (p. 347).The authors noted that close to 90 percent of the stud-ies included in their meta-analysis suffered from majormethodological problems.

Second, almost all evaluations of prison-basedprograms suffer from selection bias; that is, a positiveeffect of programming may be due to differential char-acteristics of the program participants rather than pro-grams (Gaes et al. 1999). In Wilson and Gallagher's(2000) meta-analysis, the authors found that programparticipants were more likely to be employed afterrelease than nonparticipants. They also found thatprograms that had an effect on employment also hadan effect on recidivism. But they noted that both ofthese outcomes (lower recidivism and higher employ-ment rates) could possibly be accounted for by selec-tion bias.

A common example of selection bias is when aprogram is comprised primarily of the most well-behaved and well-motivated inmates who volunteerto participate. When compared with a group of of-fenders not exposed to a particular program, the pro-gram participants may well have better outcomes, butthese outcomes most likely are due to the participantsthemselves instead of the program. Despite thewealth of research to date, few studies have em-ployed randomized designs that can help remove theinfluence of selection biases.

The issue of prisoner motivation, volun-tary/compulsory program participation, and programeffectiveness merits additional comment. Few prisonprograms are compulsory. At the same time, existingprograms generally do not have sufficient slots for allinmates who wish to participate. As a result, thoseprisoners who participate in prison programs typi-cally are highly motivated. This characteristic ofprograms tends to confound almost all programevaluations because those who participate are differ-ent from general population inmates. (Only a small

Does Prison Programming Work?

The Short Answer: The four articles reviewed by; the Urban

Institute draw similar conclusions: In general. participants in

prison based educational, vocational. and work- related programs

are more successfulthat is, they commit fewer climes and are

employed more often and for longer periods of time after re-,%.

leasethan are nonparticipants.


handful of studies to date involve random assignmentof inmates to various programsGaes et al. 1999,Saylor and Gaes 1992.) Consequently, comparisonsbetween the two populations (program participantsversus nonparticipants) should not be made, orshould be made with caution.

Third, even when studies employ rigorous meth-odological designs and identify effects that can belinked directly to programming, they frequently can-not identify the particular aspects of programmingthat contributed to the improved outcome (e.g., thequality of instruction, the staff-to-inmate ratio, theduration of programming). As a result, it becomesdifficult to identify the specific aspects of program-ming that should be given the most attention. Forprograms involving multiple foci (e.g., vocationalskills training coupled with education), this issue isespecially problematic.

Fourth, few studies carefully differentiate amongtypes of programs. Thus, while many studies indicatethat vocational training can decrease recidivism, theactivities comprising vocational training can be quitediverse, including job interviewing techniques, basicjob skills (e.g., punctuality, cleanliness, effective re-sumes), and training in specific trades (e.g., carpentry,metalwork). The diversity of programming makes itdifficult to know which specific activities, or combi-nations of activities, led to a particular outcome.

Fifth, few studies or programs targeting em-ployment outcomes systematically address the long-term motivation of offenders to be employed. Theresult is that many programs may fail to realize theirfull potential in prOthoting employment outcomes(Bushway and Reuter 2002). That is, many programsmight be successful, or more successful, were they toaddress more systematically the long-term motivationof offenders. However, few studies assess motiva-tion, and so it is difficult to know precisely how or towhat extent motivation affects long-term employmentoutcomes (Bushway and Reuter 1997).

In short, based on available evidence, it can beasserted that correctional programs most likely re-duce recidivism and increase employment outcomes.But until more and better studies are conducted thataddress the types of methodological issues raisedabove, it will not be possible to conclude that there isa direct and unequivocal link.

Effective Programs Share SimilarCharacteristics

The evaluation literature identifies characteris-tics that appear to be associated with the most prom-ising correctional programs (Cullen and Gendreau

12

2000; Gaes et al. 1999; LoBuglio 2001; Wilson andGallagher 2000). Cullen and Gendreau (2000) referto these characteristics as principles of effective in-tervention because they are factors that research con-sistently identifies as underlying the most effectiveprograms. These general characteristics include:

focusing on skills applicable to the job market,

matching offenders' needs with programofferings,

ensuring that participation is timed to be closeto an offender's release date,

providing programming for at least severalmonths,

targeting offenders' needs that are changeableand may contribute to crime, such as attitudesand pro-social activities,

providing programs that cover eachindividual's needs and are well-integratedwith other prison programs to avoid potentialredundancy or conflict across programs,

ensuring that prison programming is followedby treatment and services upon release fromprison,

relying on effective program design,implementation, and monitoring, and

involving researchers in programs asevaluators.

Each of these factors has direct relevance forprogramming aimed at post-release outcomes. Forexample, focusing on skills applicable to the jobmarket is critical because employers hire people whocan meet their particular needs. Thus, if prisons traininmates in trades or skills that are outdated or un-needed, prisoners' job prospects are reduced.Matching offenders' needs with program offeringsmeans that prisoners are exposed to programs thatenhance or add to their existing toolbox of skills, thusincreasing the likelihood that they can find workupon release. Participation in programs ideallyshould be timed to be close to an offender's releasedate, so that the skills are up-to-date, reflecting cur-rent market demands, and so that their skills, as wellas work habits, are internalized. Few programs caneffectively address an offender's needs in a shortperiod of time. Thus, correctional programmingshould be consistently provided for an extended pe-riod of time, generally for at least three to six months.

The most effective programs typically address thedynamic needs of offenders. Dynamic needs are thosethat may contribute to crime and that are changeable


(e.g., attitudes). They stand in contrast to static riskfactors that are not changeable (e.g., prior record).When changeable needs are linked to criminal of-fending (e.g., association with criminals rather thanpro-social peers), they sometimes are referred to ascriminogenic needs (Cullen and Gendreau 2000).

Regardless of the terminology, the important in-sight flowing from the distinction between dy-namic/criminogenic needs and static risk factors is thatresources should be placed where they will most likelyhave an impact that can lead both to reduced offendingand to increased positive outcomes, such as employ-ment. However, programming that generically targetsall needs are less likely to be effective than those tar-geting the specific needs of individuals. For example,some offenders may have drug treatment needs whileothers may have mental health needs. An interventionthat targets these specific needs rather than a generalset of presumed needs is more likely to be effective.

Programs that combine these different charac-teristicsthat is, that are multi-modal in natureare,in general, more likely to be effective than those thatare not. Thus, if an inmate has vocational needs aswell as substance abuse and life skills needs, the effi-cacy of any one of these interventions is enhanced ifeach of the offender's needs is addressed. Moreover,program effectiveness is enhanced even more iftreatment and services are well integrated, reducingredundancy within the system and ensuring that dif-ferent programs do not work at cross-purposes withone another.

Continuity of services is especially critical forinmates returning to the community. Without conti-nuity, treatment and training are likely to decline inefficacy or to be undermined by other factors (e.g.,drug relapse will likely affect employment stability).Many of the services inmates receivedrug treat-ment, mental health counseling, educational or voca-tional trainingprovide a foundation upon whichsuccessful reentry can be facilitated. But taken alone,they are likely to be insufficient, especially given thatthere are additional issues inmates face during thetransition into society, including difficulties findinghousing or obtaining medical or health services. Forthis reason, a range of treatment and services pro-vided during and after reentry into society can assistoffenders to maintain or increase their progress andthe likelihood of sustained employment and reducedrecidivism.

Finally, without careful program design, imple-mentation, and monitoring, it is impossible to knowwhether or how programs are effective. The bestprograms typically involve researchers at all stages of

BEST COPY AVAILABLE 3

development, relying on both process and outcomeevaluations to improve program design and opera-tions. This involvement can ensure that ineffectiveprograms either are eliminated or significantly modi-fied. It also can ensure that effective programsmaintain or improve their effectiveness by focusingon areas that can be significantly changed with littleto no additional costs.

An additional point bears emphasis. Earlier, wenoted that a major problem with studies to date is thatinmates in prison programs tend to be more moti-vated than nonparticipants. Participation in programstypically is voluntary, and so generally the most mo-tivated prisoners participate in programs. However,there is a different way to view this dilemma: Per-haps the goal of correctional administrators should beto find ways to foster offenders' motivation to betterthemselves. In a recent publication, Bushway andReuter (2002) stress the importance of motivationand, in so doing, raise precisely this policy implica-tion: "The overwhelming evidence from 30 yearsand billions of dollars of government spending is thatit is very difficult to change an individual's employ-ment status and earnings level...We believe the pri-mary reason is that they themselves need to be moti-vated to work before things like job skills can make adifference."

In conclusion, when situated in the context ofthe trends in prison populations described in the firstsection of this report, the following picture emerges:

Prison populations have grown four-fold overthe past 20 years.

The rate of participation in prison-basededucational and vocational programs hasdeclined over the past decade.

The implementation of effective programs inprison is hampered by the correctionalenvironment, one that is driven by a need tomaintain prison control and to contain costs.

Educational and work-related programsgenerally have been found to be effective, but

Effective Programming:Specific Programs vs. Adherence to General Principles

Effective programming appears to have less to do with a particular

type of intervention. Rather, effective programming seems tohave much more to do with ensuring that a core set of general,

but nonetheless critical, program characteristics or principles is

adopted. When these are present, the likelihood of sustained

changes in individuals and in long-term outcomes is increased.


with important caveats due to themethodological limitations of research to date.

Programs that adhere to a broad set of"principles of effective intervention"including targeting specific needs, providingprogramming for at least three to six monthsprior to release, relying on multi-modal,comprehensive programming, ensuring thecontinuity of programming after release fromprisontend to be more effective than thosethat do not.

Focusing on improving the motivation ofoffenders may be the most important and mosteffective strategy for enhancing their long-term employment prospects.

14Prison Programming 11

IV. PRISON PROGRAMMING: INVENTORIES IN SEVEN STATES

What is the state of practice of education,vocational training, prison industry, andemployment/transitional training in prison?

HighlightsMany states do not distinguish from among a range ofspecific prison programming activities. A commonexample is the categorization of vocational training,employment/transitional training, and prison indus-tries as "work programs."

Reducing recidivism and preparing offenders for suc-cessful reintegration into society is the primary goalof most types of correctional programs, includingeducation and vocational training, prison industries,and employment services.

For most of the types of programming in each of theseven states, fewer than 10 percent of inmates par-ticipate in the programming, lower than national-level participation rates. Since research suggeststhat the vast majority of inmates have significanteducational, vocational, and employment deficits, itappears that few inmates are receiving the program-ming that they may need.

Educational programming is the most common type ofprison programming, with upwards of half of all in-mates receiving some type of educational classes.The 1994 elimination of federal Pell Grants has re-sulted in a dramatic decrease in post-secondary edu-cation programs among the seven states in this studyand nationwide.

Vocational programs are considerably less prevalentthan education programs.

Prison industries programming is the least prevalentform of programming available to inmates in theseven states examined in this study.

Employment/transitional services are not provided insome states, while in others, up to 30 percent of in-mates receive assistance in obtaining post-releaseemployment.

To develop accurate profiles on the prevalence, dura-don, intensity, and quality of programming, researchis needed that relies on standardized classificationschemes and interviews with inmates, staff, and ad-ministrators.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

I

An Overview of Program Types

Although most states offer educational and voca-tional training, many do not differentiate from amongseveral distinct types of programming that can beincluded in the latter. In particular, vocational train-ing frequently serves as a broad category encompass-ing training for specific vocations, prison industrieswork, and instruction in how to obtain and retain ajob, what we term here as "employment services"training. Since these different activities representdistinct types of programming (Bushway 2001), wepresent information on state-level prison programmingusing four categories: educational instruction, voca-tional training, prison industry, and employmentservices.

These employment-related programs are intendedto help offenders become responsible and employablemembers of their communities upon release. Statesoften give different emphasis to each of these types ofprograms, but they generally agree on the primary goal:preparing offenders for successful reintegration intosociety. This preparation may include achieving a cer-tain level of education before release, developing tradesand employment skills to be applied after release, ordeveloping "work-ready" skills that will help an offenderlook for, secure, and maintain employment.

Types of Prison Programming

Educational programming typically includes adult basic educa-

tion (ABE) classes, high school/general education degree(GED) classes, and post-secondary classes.

Vocational training typically involves skills development in aparticular trade or industry, such as carpentry, auto detailing,electronic servicing, graphic arts /printing, horticulture, ma-sonry, and welding.

Prison industries programming typically involves work in aparticular industry, including traditionally prison-based indus-tries (e.g., license plate manufacturing, laundry, food serv-ices) as well as farming, textiles, and restoration (i.e., com-puter refurbishing).

Employment services training typically involves providingassistance in how to obtain and retain employment, includingjob interviewing skills, resume development, and professional

workplace habits.


Table 3 provides a snapshot of the state of pro-gramming for incarcerated offenders in the sevenstates examined in this review. The intent of thisinventory is to illustrate some state practices and thevariation across states that can exist, not to provide anational portrait of prison programming. All ofthem provide some form of educational classes, butonly two provide special education classes. No coreset of vocational training is provided among thestates. Instead, each offers a wide range of voca-tional training. Some states provide employmentservices, while others provide none. And prisonindustries also vary, with most states offering tradi-tional work opportunities and some also offeringnon-traditional types of programming, such as mar-ket research.

Educational Programs

We divide correctional educational programsinto three categories: adult basic education (ABE),which includes instruction in basic-level math andreading comprehension; high school/general educa-tion degree (GED) programs; and post-secondaryclasses. Most states also offer Title 1 educationclasses for offenders under 21 who have an educa-tional disability. Title 1 Grants to local education

The Need for Better Data andResearch on Prison Programming

To obtain an accurate picture of prison

programming, better data and research

are needed: Current data sources do

not readily allow researchers or adminis-

trators to provide basic descriptive

information about prison programming,

including the prevalence, duration,

intensity, or quality of programming.

Although a general sense of program-

ming strengths and weaknesses can be

gleaned from annual reports, considera-

bly more in-depth, comprehensive, and

detailed information is necessary foraccurately assessing the state of prison

programming, not only in the states

examined in this study but nationwide.

Studies that rely on standardized classi-

fication schemes and interviews with

staff, administrators, and inmates would

yield more useful and accurate informa-

tion about current weaknesses and

strategic opportunities and partners to

improve prison-based programming.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

agencies provide financial assistance for instructionalprograms and counseling for students who are failing,or most at risk of failing, to meet the state's perform-ance standards. ABE and Title 1 programs are themost well-established types of academic programs dueto federal and state funding that has been fairly con-sistent and large relative to other types of correctionalprogram funding.

As shown in table 3, all seven states offer highschool and GED certificate classes in correctionalfacilities. Offenders who are near completion of theirhigh school diploma can enroll in high school creditprograms. Other offenders can prepare to take theGED exam with a comprehensive preparation coursethat often includes practice exams. All juvenile of-fenders must attend high school classes during theday. The cost of these programs is paid by each state,with the federal government providing subsidies forjuvenile education programs. Funding for adult edu-cation programs often is supplemented with requiredcontributions by inmates. In some cases, programsmay be subsidized by wages inmates earn in prisonemployment. In othersnotably post secondary edu-cation classesinmates are required to pay for theirown classes from personal savings or through scholar-ships provided by private foundations.

Table 3. Types of Correctional Programs Offered

EducationIllinois Pre-GED

GED/HSPost-secondary

Vocation50 differentprograms

PrisonIndustry

Traditional

EmploymentServices

Pre- andpost-releaseprogram

Indiana ABE 21 different Traditional No statewideGED/HS programs Food programsPost-secondary FarmsTitle 1

Iowa LiteracyGED/HSPost-secondary

No statewide Traditional No statewideprograms Farm programs

Private SectorRestoration

Michigan ABE 16 different Traditional Pre- andGED/HS programs RestorationPost-secondary

post-releaseprogram

Minnesota ABEGED/HSSpecial ed.

Post- Traditional Pre-releasesecondary Market research coursesVoc. ed.

Ohio ABEGED/HSApplied academic

27 different Traditional Apprentice-programs Restoration ship program

Wisconsin ABEGED/HSSpecial ed./Title 1

CertifiedNon-certified

Traditional Pre- andFarm post-releaseRestoration program

Sources: Based on interviews and a review of state materials.ABE = adult basic educationGED = general education degreeHS = high school

6


Post-secondary classes include associate degreeclasses and, in some states, bachelor degree classes.Because Pell Grants are no longer available to of-fenders, inmates are responsible for paying their owntuition for post-secondary classes. Pell Grants arefederal financial awards given to college studentsenrolled in undergraduate degree programs. Thesegrants were available to inmates until 1994, whenCongress eliminated the use of Pell Grants for in-mates. This ineligibility has resulted in small num-bers of programs for and enrollments in post-secondary classes. Diane Williams, president andCEO of the Safer Foundation in Chicago, believesthat denying access to Pell Grants has reduced thenumber of higher education options and curriculumchoices available to inmates (September 28, 2001,Urban Institute interview), a view echoed by Lo-Buglio (2001). The Safer Foundation, based in Chi-cago, is one of the country's largest community-based providers of employment services for ex-offenders. Ms. Williams suggests that without ac-cess to higher education, offenders face difficultodds in finding employment upon release.

Among the four types of prison programmingexamined in this study, education represents theprimary type of prison programming offered toprison inmates. All the individuals surveyed for thisproject identified education as an essential rehabili-tation element for offenders to be released. Onereason is that most inmates have education levelswell below those of the general population.

Because inmates' educational needs are sowidespread, few prison systems are able to offer anadequate number of programs. For example, of-fenders in Iowa prisons filled all literacy programs tocapacity in 2000 (Iowa Department of Corrections2000), and the Michigan Department of Corrections(DOC) has a waiting list of 900 offenders who needbasic literacy education (Michigan Department ofCorrections 2000). Similarly, Ohio estimates that 50to 80 percent of all its offenders are learning dis-abled (Cogswell 1994). Providing educationalservices to address these offenders' particular needshas proven to be a challenge.

The quality of educational programming alsohas suffered as a result of increased demand anddecreased funding. For example, among those of-fenders who receive educational programming, thequality of programming frequently is constrained bylow staff-to-inmate ratios. A 1994 study by the OhioLegislative Office of Education Oversight regarding edu-cational programming in the Ohio Department of Reha-bilitation and Corrections (ODRC) found that over-crowding was among the top factors limiting the

effectiveness of prison education programs (Cogswell1994). This same report recommended that theODRC continue to provide a full range of educationopportunities to meet inmate needs.

Other states identified similar challenges. Indi-ana, for example, reported that only 65 percent ofjuvenile males in adult facilities were eligible for spe-cial education subsidies from the federal government(Indiana Department of Corrections 2000). In Wis-consin, 49 percent of inmates lack either a high schooldiploma or its equivalent, and 75 percent of adult of-fenders perform math at the eighth grade level orlower (Wisconsin Department of Corrections 2000).Because of overcrowding, teachers and administratorsreportedly lack the ability to adequately address theeducational needs of prisoners. And in states such asOhio, most of the offenders with special educationneeds are taught by prison educators who are not certi-fied in special education (Cogswell 1994).

Access to Post-Secondary Classes in Iowa Prisons

Iowa offenders who can obtain the necessary funding are allowed

to take community college courses without leaving their correc-

tional facility. Each correctional facility is connected to a state-wide fiber optics network allowing inmates to participate in com-munity college classes from a prison classroom. The toss of the

federal Pell Grants effectively eliminated this program because

inmates became responsible for paying for their own college

classes. Today, there are few prisoners who can afford to pay to

participate in community college classes via two-way audio and

one-way video technology. This example illustrates ways in which

changes in federal funding (e.g., Pell Grants) have impacted state

correctional programming. as well as ways in which states have

attempted to adapt to such changes.

Source: Lowell Brandt. Offender Services, Iowa Oepartrnent of Coe-rectums.telephone Interview, August 24. 2001. the Urban Institute.

Vocational Programs

As table 3 shows, the second most prolific typeof programming in correctional facilities is vocationaltraining. Brdadly defined, vocational programs in-volve the training of offenders in certain skill sets tobe used in future jobs upon release. Vocational train-ing is important because offenders often lack the skillsneeded to successfully compete in the labor market(LoBuglio 2001; Travis et al. 2001).

Most states offer vocational training programsthat emphasize the importance of leaving the prisonsystem with a skill or trade. These states offer voca-tional programs certified by a technical college systemor an independent, industry-accepted agency, and

17


BEST COPY AVAILABLE

prisoners who successfully complete these programsreceive a certificate that is intended to enhance theirability to get a job upon release.

Each of the states in the present study approachvocational programming differently. In some states,to be eligible to enroll in a vocational program, of-fenders must first complete a certain level of educa-tion, usually a high school diploma or its equivalent.In Minnesota, offenders must first have received aGED or high school diploma to participate in ad-vanced vocational programs. This requirement isintended to ensure that offenders possess the neededskills to complete the program. Some states givepriority to academic training and make certain levelsof academic achievement necessary for participatingin vocational training. The Illinois Department ofCorrections and the Minnesota Department of Cor-rections both illustrate this strategy. Each state hasgrouped vocational and educational classes together,requiring that academic standards be met beforevocational classes can be taken.

To enhance the value of vocational training,many prison-based vocational programs offer certifi-cates to graduates. The significance of the certificatesvaries depending on the vocation and the inclusion ofcommunity organizations. In some cases, outsideaccrediting agencies teach offenders trades, ensuringthat they meet established industry standards prior toreceiving a certificate. For example, the WisconsinDepartment of Corrections offers 23 programs certi-fied by the Wisconsin Technical College System.These programs include auto body, auto detailing,electronic servicing, graphic arts/printing, horticulture,masonry, offset press technician, refrigeration servic-ing, and welding. In other cases, certification is sim-ply an internal procedure, conducted in consultationwith outside organizations. For example, in Ohio, astatewide vocational advisory board and a crafts coun-cil provide ongoing assistance to ensure the appropri-ateness and quality of vocational program selections.

A different approach is evident in Indiana. Inthis state, the Department of Corrections has a divi-sion (Adult and Vocational Programs) whose re-sponsibility is to provide a wide range of vocationalopportunities. Currently, the state offers 21 separatevocational opportunities. Although the vocationalsubdivision is housed within the DOC's EducationServices Division, both operate under a unique mis-sion. Each facility has a vocational committee thatcreates the facility's curricula and teaching require-ments for vocational teachers. Vocational commit-tees work with local area vocational schools to en-sure vocational teachers are using the most up -to-

date techniques and equipment (Indiana Departmentof Corrections 2000).

In many states, the types of vocational programsoffered depend on student interest, instructor avail-ability, and funding availability. Five statesIllinois,Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsinhave ex-tensive vocational curricula. Illinois alone providesover 50 different vocational programs. Recent fund-ing problems have resulted in Iowa reducing its voca-tional programming significantly. According toLowell Brandt, assistant director of Offender Servicesat the Iowa DOC, the decline in vocational program-ming was closely tied to the loss of federal Pell Grants(August 24, 2001, Urban Institute interview).Through Pell funding, community college professorsprovided academic instruction, but this instructionfrequently included a focus on specific vocationaltrades. When funding for these classes declined, so,too, did participation in classes aimed at vocationaltraining.

The vocational programs offered in many correc-tional facilities today are viewed skeptically by someobservers. For example, according to Diane Williams,corrections personnel frequently attempt to link voca-tional programs to general rather than specific marketdemands (September 28, 2001, Urban Institute inter-view). Ms. Williams, who works with released of-fenders in Illinois and Indiana to find jobs, is not con-vinced, however, that this approach benefits herclients. She would rather see training that was indus-try specific so that program graduates of, for example,an inventory management software system coulddemonstrate a solid understanding of the inventorymanagement process. Offenders would then have agreater likelihood of adding value above a candidatewith entry-level skills and, therefore, be more likely tobe hired and to command a higher salary.

Completion of Vocational Programs inIndiana Leads to Reduced Time in Prison

In Indiana, state legislation allows inmates to reduce their sen-

tences by completing vocational programming., The result appears

to be an increase in the number of inmates taidntadvantage ofexisting vocational opportunities. Currently,.thelndiana Depart-ment of Corrections offers 21 vocational tracks::: The Department

emphasizes occupations the Indiana Department of Workforce

Development has classified as both low supply and. high demand.

Offenders receive highly technical training from professional

instructors.

Source: Carolyn Meier, Division of Programs and Community Service.Indiana Department of Corrections, telephone intervlewt.August 15. 2001,the Urban Institute.


BEST COPY MAILABLE

In response to these types of concerns, Indi-ana's Department of Corrections now designs itsvocational programs to provide offenders withtraining in occupations the Indiana Department ofWorkforce Development classifies as having a lowsupply of personnel and a high demand (IndianaDepartment of Corrections 2000). Few other statesappear to link their vocational training systemati-cally to specific market demands.

Prison Industries

Prison industry programs have always been apart of state correctional systems (Austin and Irwin2001). In contrast to vocational training, whichfocuses on helping inmates develop skills that mayhelp them obtain employment upon release, prisonindustries focus primarily on keeping inmates occu-pied and on providing a means by which prison sys-tems can be self-sufficient. Although they havealways served state needsby reducing prisoneridleness and lowering operating costsprison in-dustries have also become an important tool to pro-vide offenders with useful job skills and training.Prison officials view these programs as adding valueto the community by providing services and, throughthese services, a form of restorative justice, that is,reparation for harms to society (National Correc-tional Industries Association 1998).

As table 3 shows, a wide range of work activi-ties make up the area of "prison industries," includ-ing traditional work, such as license plate manufac-turing, laundry, and food services. Some states offerinnovative prison industry programs, includingfarming, textiles, and computer refurbishing, whereoffenders renovate and update old, used computersfor use in elementary, middle school, and highschool classes.

Although many states have prison industries,the number of offenders enrolled in these programsis relatively small. The average number of prisonersin prison industries ranges from 3 to 15 percent.MINNCOR Industries in Minnesota boasts one ofthe highest participation rates (16 percent) in thecountry (MINNCOR Industries 2000). Due in partto limited demand (the majority of programs weexamined produce goods and services only for gov-ernment and nonprofit organizations) and the pro-hibitive cost of equipment and supplies, prison in-dustries comprise a relatively small part of theoverall set of programming activities in the statesexamined in this study.

In states where the focus of prison industriesincludes an attempt to train offenders for specific

types of jobs, a need has emerged to develop highlydiversified programming. For example, Indiana's 14facilities offer opportunities in over 50 different in-dustries for offenders, ranging from producing furni-ture to farming (PEN 2000).

In addition to emphasizing offender skill-building, all seven states produce goods for stateagencies. Michigan State Industries, for example,produces goods and services for governmental entitiesand nonprofit organizations in Michigan and otherstates (Michigan Department of Corrections 2001).However, some prison industries also have used pri-vate-sector partnerships to increase the opportunitiesfor inmates and to create important ties with commu-nity organizations. For example, four state pro-gramsIowa Prison Industries, PEN Products (Indi-ana), MINNCOR Industries (Minnesota), andWisconsin Bureau of Correctional Enterpriseshavetaken advantage of the federal Prison Industry En-hancement Certification Program (PIE) (see sidebar)to produce goods through the private sector. The PIEprogram is reported by the National Correctional In-dustries Association (2001) to provide a cost-effectivemeans of providing offenders with marketable jobskills.

In most states, prison industries strive to be self-sufficient operations, not dependent on state funding.Some states have been successful in achieving self-sufficiency and have done so in part by eliminatingcertain industries that were not efficient to operate ordid not yield a profit. For example, Illinois eliminatedproblematic, inefficient programs during a restructur-ing process in 1999 and 2000. As a result, IllinoisCorrectional Industries realized an overall profit of$3.8 million in 2000 (Illinois Correctional Industries2000). Similarly, MINNCOR has a five-year plan toachieve financial self-sufficiency. It is refining itsproduct line to better serve the needs of its customers(MINNCOR Industries 2000).

One result of the restructuring of prison indus-tries, according to interview respondents, has been adecrease in the prison industry opportunities for of-fenders. But these decreases frequently are tempo-rary, followed by increased opportunities. In Illinois,for example, the prison industries that were retainedhave been sufficiently profitable such that the IllinoisCorrectional Industries has begun investigating strate-gies for expanding training opportunities for inmatesand for improving the quality of training (Illinois Cor-rectional Industries 2000). Similarly, Indiana's PrisonIndustries, PEN Products, adopted a business model10 years ago with the intention of building a strongcustomer base, leading to job growth. In 2000, PENProducts was able to expand its production and de-


9

velop new products, each of which required the par-ticipation of more inmates than in the past in prisonindustries.

Prison Industry Enhancement Certification Program

Administered by the U.S. Department of Justice. Bureau of Justice

Assistance (BJA), the Prison Industry Enhancement Certification

Program (PIE) encourages states and local governments to estab-

lish employment for prisoners through private-sector work oppor-

tunities. The PIE program exempts state departments of correc-tions (and private-sector partners) from certain restrictions on the

sale of prisoner-made goods in interstate commerce. For exam-ple, it lifts the S10,000 sales limit on goods and services sold to

the federal government by state departments of corrections.Congress created the PIE program in 1979 as a cost-effectivemay

of reducing prison idleness. increasing inmate job skills, and

improving the success of offender transition into the community

upon release. Thirty-nine state and local jurisdictions are cur-rently certified under the PIE program, including Indiana, Iowa,

Minnesota. and Wisconsin. Ohio is among those 39 certified juris-

dictions but currently does not have an active program. Wagesmade by inmates in private-sector work opportunities since 1979

have exceeded 5190 million. The vast majority of those funds,

whickare paid by the private employers to the prison industries,are spent on room and board of state prisoners, support for de-

pendants of prisoners, support for victims, and taxes,

Source: National Correctional Industries Association 12001).

Experts with whom we spoke register the sameconcerns with prison industries as they do with voca-tional programsnamely, that there is too much em-phasis placed on reducing offender idleness and notenough emphasis on developing the skills offendersneed to obtain post-release employment. They notethat what offenders learn in many prison industriesprovides a limited foundation for obtaining higherpaying jobs when inmates are released. Yet, asPhyllis Eisen, of the National Association of Manu-facturers, noted at a recent conference ("CorrectionalEducation and Training: Raising the Stakes," Sep-tember 24, 2001), manufacturers anticipate needingover 10 million workers during the next decade, sug-gesting that even workers with minimal skills whohave at least some exposure to a range of manufac-turing industries may have better job prospects thanoffenders without this exposure. In addition, throughthe PIE program and other such initiatives, offendersare gaining valuable interaction with private busi-nesses, providing opportunities to show prospectiveoutside employers their skills and abilities.

BEST COPY AVI1,ILABLE0

Employment Services Programs

Programs that help offenders develop the skills togain and maintain employment can be as important asthose programs that teach the requisite skills to performthe job (Bushway 2001). In a growing effort to prepareinmates for employment upon their release, state de-partments of corrections have developed specializedcurricula to deal with the unique challenges offendersface. These programs are designed to work with of-fenders in the later stages of their incarceration throughtheir release and parole period.

Five of the states surveyed for this study offer adiverse selection of employment services, while twooffer none (see table 3). The vast majority fall intotwo general categories: classes directly related toemployment and classes indirectly related to employ-ment. Those directly related to employment includejob placement services, interview skills, and jobreadiness (arriving on time, dressing appropriately,etc.). Classes that are indirectly related to employ-ment upon release include basic life skills, stress man-agement, and conflict resolution.

One example of an employment services programfor both pre- and post-release is Texas's Project RIO(Re-Integration of Offenders). This program operates62 offices with more than 100 employees and pro-vides services for 16,000 parolees each year through-out the state (Finn 1998). The program provides jobpreparation services to prisoners while they are stillincarcerated and provides full services to help parol-ees find and retain jobs once released from prison.

Of the seven states we examined, Ohio and Illi-nois have the largest number of offenders participatingin employment services programming. In Ohio, over15,000 offenders (33 percent of all offenders) wereenrolled in the state's pre-release program in 1999.The pre-release program provides job search trainingskills and helps offenders set career and life goals(Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections2000). The Ohio Department of Rehabilitation andCorrections also classifies its apprenticeship programsas employment services. Many of the apprenticeshipprograms teach the same skills an offender mightlearn in a vocational class or in a prison industry.However, the emphasis is on teaching inmates how towork closely with a trained professional and develop-ing interpersonal skills needed on the job.

The Illinois Department of Corrections created thePreStart Program in 1991 to focus on improving theparole system. The program, which works with over11,000 Illinois prisoners (24 percent of all inmates),consists of a 30-hour curriculum that helps offenders


prepare for their job search and set career goals (Illi-nois Department of Corrections 1999).

Several states are developing a system-wideemployment services program. Indiana has begundeveloping a program modeled on Texas's ProjectRIO. Carolyn Heier, education director of the Indi-ana Department of Corrections, is working closelywith representatives from the Project RIO group todevelop a similar system in Indiana. Currently, only60 prisoners are enrolled in the program (August 15,2001, Urban Institute interview). Indiana hopes toexpand the program to all inmates who are released.

Michigan's Department of Corrections has re-cently begun participating in a national programcalled Amer-I-Can, a 60-hour program that teachesemployment and life skills such as communications,goal setting, financial management, job search, andjob retention. Michigan's participation began in1998, and 500 soon-to-be released prisoners gradu-ated in 1999 (Michigan Department of Corrections1999).

Typically, courses in employment services aresmall and available just prior to release from prison.Although most states in this survey emphasize theneed for teaching offenders effective work habits andjob retention skills, some offer these skills within thecontext of other programs. For example, one statedgoal of the Minnesota Correctional Industries is forinmates to develop a sound work ethic (MINNCORIndustries 2000). Similarly, the Illinois CorrectionalIndustries has tried to create a real-world work envi-ronment for their inmate employees, one that requiresnot only job-related skill development, but also train-ing in the skills and habits needed to both obtain andmaintain employment (Illinois Correctional Industries2000).

Among the experts with whom we spoke, thegeneral view is that pre-release employment servicesprograms can be critical for helping inmates. Theystressed that the more prepared candidates have bet-ter prospects for finding and retaining employment.Mindy Tarlow, the executive director for the Centerfor Employment Opportunities, mentioned that sev-eral federal agenciesincluding the Office of Cor-rectional Education in the U.S. Department of Edu-cation and the Federal Bureau of Prisonshaverecognized the importance of employment servicesprogramming and have begun several initiatives toincrease and improve this programming in state andfederal prisons.

However, Charles Terry, assistant professor ofSociology at the University of Michigan-Flint, and aformer prisoner as well, noted during an interview(September 28, 2001) that in his experience few

prisons make prisoner reentry (i.e., the transition ofreleased offenders into communities) a priority. Healso noted that despite considerable attention given toprogramming and reentry, political support for sus-tained funding is unlikely. According to ProfessorTerry, evidence of this lack of support is reflected inpart by the discontinuation of Pell Grants and the dis-continuation of many prison-based programs.

Participation Rates in Prison Programming

We now consider the extent to which prisonersparticipate in the types of programs discussed. Aspreviously noted, national data indicate that approxi-mately 35 percent of inmates receive educational pro-gramming and that approximately 27 percent receivevocational programming (Travis et al. 2001, 17). Andresearch suggests that the vast majority of inmateshave significant educational, vocational, and employ-ment deficits (Gaes et al. 1999; Cullen and Gendreau2000), suggesting that few inmates are receiving pro-gramming they may need.

The prison program participation rates in all sevenstates are relatively low compared with national-levelparticipation rates. For most of the types of program-ming in each of the seven states, fewer than 10 percentof inmates participate in the programming. As shownin table 4, significant variation in program participa-tion exists across states. The rates for educationalprograms range from 6 percent (completion) in Illinoisto 58 percent (participation) in Ohio. Combined, thereare approximately 60,000 educational program partici-pants in the seven states. However, the actual numberof individuals enrolled in educational programs may besmaller because many offenders participate in multipleeducational programs.

There are 11,500 vocational program participantsin six of the states surveyed. Iowa did not report anyparticipants in vocational programming. The partici-pation rates for vocational programs are significantlylower than academic programs, ranging from ap-proximately 4 to 13 percent across the states.

All states surveyed have prison industries, andabout 11,300 offenders worked in a prison industry infiscal year 2000. Participation rates in prison indus-tries are similar to vocational programs (three to 15percent).

Almost 30,000 offenders participated in em-ployment services programs, with Ohio (16,500) andIllinois (11,500) accounting for the vast majority ofthese offenders. Indiana and Iowa reported no em-ployment services. Participation in employmentservices across the seven states ranged from less thanone percent to 35 percent.


Table 4. Estimated Number of Offenders in State Prison Programs, 2000

Number of participants (and percentage of total prison population):

Education Vocation Prison Employmentprograms programs industries programs

Illinois 3,025 program 2,256 program 1,427 employees, on 11,512 programcompletions (6.4%) completions (4.8%) average, in industries participants (24.4%)

(3.0%)

Indiana 7,702 program 1,845 program 1,468 employed in prison No statewide programparticipants (35.8%) participants (8.6%) industries (6.8%)

Iowa 3,363 programparticipants (42.6%)

No statewide program 683 employees in prisonindustries (8.6%)

No statewide program

839 program completions(10.6%)

Michigan 10,900 program 2,143 participated, on 3,000 employees in prison 250 program completionsparticipants (23.8%) average, in programs industries (6.6%) (0.5%)

(4.7%)

Minnesota 1,950 program 831 program participants 972 employees in prison 655 program participantsparticipants (30.1%) (12.8%) industries (15.0%) (10.1%)

Ohio 27,313 program 3,550 program 2,978 employees in prison 16,578 programparticipants (58.4%) participants (7.6%) industries (6.4%) participants (35.4%)

1,386 receivedcertificates (3.0%)

Wisconsin 2,857 participated, on 929 participated, on 754 employees in prison 248 program participantsaverage, in programs average, in programs industries (3.6%) (1.2%)(13.6%) (4.4%)

972 program completions(4.6%)

Notes: Estimates are based on fiscal year 2000 data, except for Ohio, which is based on 1999 data. The data come from interviews and review ofstate materials. Key information was not readily available to provide systematic and consistent comparisons of state-level program participation orcompletion rates. Some states do not produce reports on program characteristics, numbers of inmates who need different types of programming,numbers of participants in particular programs, and duration of participant involvement.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE 22Prison Programming 19

V. STRATEGIC OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVING ANDEXPANDING CORRECTIONAL PROGRAMMING

What are the strategic opportunities for improvingexisting employment-related programs andintroducing new programs in prisons?

HighlightsAn opportunity exists to build new strategic partner-ships and collaborations or strengthen existing onesamong a diverse group of organizations that can agreeon a common goal of improving the education andwork skills of prisoners.

Expanding and improving correctional programs couldbe reframed from a way to rehabilitate individuals toa way to increase offender accountability.

Correctional education and training curricula could besystematically reviewed and updated.

Businesses from the private sector could be engaged inthe training and employment of offenders prior totheir release, with the goal of linking these prisonersto employment after release.

Correctional instructor skills could be improved andenhanced, both for teaching and for navigating in-struction in correctional settings.

Process and outcome evaluations could be conductedto identify not only programs that work, but also thespecific characteristics of programs that most improveex-offender employment outcomes.

A best practices survey of correctional programs couldbe conducted.

The ability of correctional agencies to track offenderdemand, participation, and program availability couldbe improved.

The ability of correctional agencies to assess offend-ers' needs and match them with appropriate pro-gramming could be improved.

For the purpose of this analysis, we classify strategicopportunities for improving and expanding correc-tional programs into three categories: policy oppor-tunities, practice opportunities, and research opportu-nities. In each instance, we identify what theopportunity is, we comment on why the opportunityis important, and we make suggestions on how thisopportunity cam be exploited.

Urban Institute recommendations are based oninterviews with stakeholders, reviews of other rele-vant materials, and Farabee et al.'s (1999) and Lo-Buglio's (2001) recent commentaries on how to im-prove corrections-based programming. Theserecommendations identify concrete opportunities thatlegislators, corrections agencies, and private founda-tions could take advantage of to improve and expandeffective prison-based programs.

Opportunities to Change Policies

1. An opportunity exists to build' new strategicpartnerships and collaborations or strengthenexisting ones among a diverse group of publicagencies and private organizations. Many or-ganizations, with different perspectives, canagree on a common goal of improving the educa-tion and work skills of prisoners. .

WHY

HOW

Interest in introducing and improving cor-rectional programs has increased in recentyears. Such collaborations could strive tobuild a more concentrated and cohesivepolitical constituency for correctional pro-grams.

Potential strategic partners include state andfederal departments of labor, departments ofeducation, departments of correction, pris-oners' rights advocacy groups, businessassociations, education-related associations,researchers, and victims' rights groups.These key stakeholders could come togetherfor the purposes of consolidating efforts,improving information exchange acrossinterested organizations, setting an agenda,and prioritizing next steps.


T COPY AVAILABLE

The objective of rehabilitating offenders to bebetter human beings so they can lead a moreproductive, socially acceptable life. has seendeclining support over the past; two- ::decades.Expanding and improving correctional pro-grams could be reframed from a way to rehabili-tate individuals to a way to increase offenderaccountability.WHY

HOW

Requiring offenders to "be productive" and"work hard" like the average citizen may bemore politically palatable and publiclysupported than offering incarcerated indi-viduals programs for rehabilitative purposes.

This effort could be approached at the statelevel, agency level, or facility level. Lawsmandating work or training while incarcer-ated could be passed by state legislatures.For example, Oregon recently adopted aseries of changes in response to the 1994Prison Reform and Inmate Work Act. Thechanges include an automated assessmentprocess for identifying offender needs,matching of offender needs with appropriateprogramming, monitoring of inmate prog-ress, and graduated vocational training andwork experiences that culminate with theoffender's release (LoBuglio 2001). Alter-natively, departments of corrections couldintroduce policies that require offenders toattain certain education levels before releaseby a parole board, or individual wardenscould implement programs at their facilitiesgiven sufficient money and resources.

Opportunities to Change Practices

-3. Correctional education and training curriculacould be systematically reviewed and updated.WHY

HOW

Due to limited resources, typical correc-tional programs have not been regularlyreviewed and updated and are often out ofdate. The tremendous recent changes intechnology make it more difficult for of-fenders to succeed if trained in outdatedindustries or technologies.

Organizations that develop standards andcurricula for other educational and voca-tional endeavors could be hired to updateand restructure correctional curricula. TheCorrectional Education Association (CEA)

BEST C S PY MAI BLE 2 4

4.

5.

has developed a set of standards that couldprovide the foundation for a systematicreview.

Businesses from the private sector could beengaged in the training and employment ofoffenders prior to their release, with the goal oflinking these prisoners to employment afterrelease.WHY

HOW

Despite the current, short-term economicconcerns, businesses (manufacturers inparticular) are forecasting a shortage ofworkers in the not-too-distant future. Sev-eral participants at a recent conference("Correctional Education and Training:Raising the Stakes" September 24, 2001)noted that many industries are increasinglyin need of a well-trained workforce. Theestimated high-level of demand over thenext decade suggests opportunities forprisons to train offenders in job skills thatcan be parlayed into well-paying positions.There is considerable interest among bothcriminal justice and workforce developmentpolicymakers and practitioners for in-prisonprograms that can better prepare inmates forpost-release employment.

Business associations in partnerships withdepartments of corrections could organizejob fairs for soon-to-be-released offenders.(The Federal Bureau of Prisons has adoptedthis approach with considerable success.)Businesses often are reluctant to participate,but after attending the job fairs typicallybecome enthusiastic supporters because ofthe direct benefits to them.

Correctional instructor skills could be improvedand enhanced, both for teaching and for navi-gating instruction in correctional settings.WHY Inmates have unique educational needs and

correctional facilities pose unique logisticalchallenges. Correctional instructors may notbe properly trained to handle such distinc-tive challenges. Indeed, many programs usevolunteer instructors with little to no teach-ing experience.

Many community colleges and universitieshave faculty who may be willing to provideinstructor training at little or no cost toprison systems.

HOW


Opportunities to Improve Research

6. Evaluations to assess the impact on Piiii:releisieemployment and recidivism and identify poorlyrun existing programs could be conducted.WHY

HOW

As indicated by the literature review, there isa considerable need for rigorous process andoutcome evaluations of well-designedcorrectional programs, with a particular eyetoward identifying characteristics of theseprograms that most affect prisoner out-comes. Solid research evidence may in-crease public and political support forcorrectional programs.

Evaluations could be conducted by researchunits within the departments of correction,local research partners, or nationally knownresearch organizations.

7 A best practices survey of correctional programscould be conducted.

WHY

HOW

8.

A compilation of best practices for educa-tional and vocational programs does notexist.

The survey could be conducted by researchunits within the departments of correction,local research partners, or larger researchorganizations. One model for this approachis provided by Ohio's Department of Reha-bilitation and Corrections, which has estab-lished an Office of Reentry and CorrectionalBest Practices.

The ability of correctional agencies to trackoffender demand, participation, and programavailability could be improved.

In general, departments of correctionscurrently do not have good mechanisms forrecording information related to correctionalprograms. As described previously, offend-ers are typically not assigned to programsbased on their individual needs. Correctionsadministrators do not have' efficient andaccurate mechanisms to record the length ofprograms, the intensity of programs, thetime they are offered relative to an expectedrelease date, or the availability/demand.Better documentation of these issues maymake them better positioned to make thecase for expanding or improving programs.

WHY

I COPY AVM BLE 5

HOW In each state, the department of corrections(or perhaps a hired consultant) could surveyand interview facility administrators andcatalogue demand, participation, and avail-ability or could develop computerized datatracking systems, preferably integratingthem into existing systems.

The ability of correctional agencies to assessoffenders' needs and match offenders' needswith appropriate programming,conkt be im-proved.W HY Offenders generally are not adequately

assessed in terms of their needs and skillsbefore beginning a correctional program.This may result in inefficient use of currentresources by not targeting people and pro-grams.

Evaluations could be conducted by researchunits within the departments of correction,local research partners, or larger researchorganizations. The focus could includeidentifying the best strategies employednationally to match offender needs andprogramming, assessing the extent to whichthese strategies are effective, and developinginstruments and procedures that improve theeffectiveness of these strategies.

HOW


VI. KEY POLICY TARGETS

Although the Strategic Opportunities section men-tioned several key policy targets, this section focusesmore directly and systematically on the people, agen-cies, and organizations that could facilitate the im-provement and enhancement of prison-based pro-gramming.

Our discussions with program directors and keyadministrators in departments of corrections indicatethat correctional programming is dependent not onlyon funding but also on other state agencies, federal

agencies, school districts, non-governmental organi-zations, and private firms. These groups frequentlyare essential to ongoing prison programming. Manypractitioners noted, however, that these same groupsjust as frequently remain largely untapped resources.

Based on publications and on interviews withrepresentatives from the seven states, table 5 providesa list of key policy targets important to improvingand enhancing successful programming. A briefdescription of each category is provided below.

Table 5. Key Policy Targets for Improving and Enhancing Prison Programming

Strategic PartnersState Agencies

State departments of corrections fre-quently target other state agencies inpromoting and providing prison pro-gramming.

Identified PartnersState librariesWorkforce developmentofficesState-run regional resourcecentersState vocational departmentsState budget offices

Specific ExamplesWisconsin's Bureau of Correctional Enterprises (BCE) hascreated a Transitional Community Placement Project thattargets inmates who are scheduled to be released and who areworking in a Wisconsin prison industry. The transition programenhances the work offenders are doing in their prison industryjob with ethics and job skills training. The most commoncollaborators are the state's agencies on educationstatedepartments of education and state boards of regents.

Colleges and LocalSchool Districts

Private, state, and community colleges,as well as local school districts, provideeducational and vocational materials,student volunteers, and training forteachers.

Community collegesPrivate and state universitiesLocal school districts

The Indiana University and Purdue University Reading Programshave partnered with the Department of Corrections in Indianato provide tutoring for offenders in adult literacy programs.

Federal Agencies

Federal agencies provide financial sup-port for in-prison programming.

Department of EducationDepartment of LaborDepartment of Justice

Federal funds are provided for Title 1 and Special Educationprograms for juveniles as well as some adult education pro-grams.

Non-GovernmentalOrganizations

NGOs offer programs to supplementprison programming with skills-basedvolunteer opportunities.

Good Will IndustriesHabitat for HumanityUnited Way

Private Companies Manufacturing companiesInternet providers and soft-ware manufacturersState departments of correction also

target private corporations for promot-ing and providing prison programming.Private corporations invest in correc-tional programming by offering businessto local prison industries and training tooffenders.

Local chapters of Habitat for Humanity have worked withcorrectional programs in Iowa, Michigan, and Wisconsin tocreate opportunities for offenders to learn building skills andhelp the community.

Prison industries like MINNCOR (Minnesota) and BCE (Wiscon-sin) have established partnerships with private companies.The partnerships provide additional work opportunities foroffenders, and private companies receive a reliable andflexible workforce for large projects.

The Department of Corrections in Minnesota voiced interestin working with Internet providers and software manufactur-ers to produce a way for offenders to develop computer skillswith a simulated Internet connection.

Source: Based on publications and on Urban Institute interviews with key personnel from state departments of corrections.


State Agencies

State agencies were the most frequently citedstrategic partners. They provide both financial re-sources and programming support. State librariescould supply materials and resources for prison edu-cators. Workforce development offices could workwith departments of corrections to make sure offend-ers are well-prepared for finding and retaining em-ployment upon release. State-run regional resourcecenters work with correctional facilities to fmd localjobs in the communities offenders will be returning towhen they are released. Because they are oftentreated as separate entities, the state's prison indus-tries are also a commonly cited state partner. Thecollaboration opportunities between the prison in-dustries and other groups, especially businesses, lie increating programs that match existing business needs.

Colleges and Local School Districts

The next most frequently cited strategic partnerwas colleges and local school districts, focusing onprogramming that these educational institutions pro-vided directly. For example, the Iowa Department ofCorrections works closely with the community col-lege system to provide college-level courses for in-mates. Private and state universities were also men-tioned as partners. Departments of Corrections inWisconsin and Indiana have partnered with stateuniversities and private colleges to bring student tu-tors and state-of-the-art teaching techniques to of-fenders. Local school districts also were reported asa source to provide technical support for teachers inprison.

Federal Agencies

Federal agencies were cited as strategic partners.The partnership is built around the financial assis-tance the federal agencies provide to state depart-ments of corrections. The three agencies that werecited most often were the Department of Education,the Department of Labor, and the Department of Jus-tice. The Department of Education provides fundingfor ABE, Title 1, and other juvenile programs. Andthe Department of Justice oversees the Prison Indus-tries Enhancement Certification Program discussedearlier in this report.

Non-Governmental Organizations

Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) werementioned because of the support and opportunitiesthey provide prisoners. Representatives from Wis-consin, Indiana, and Michigan explicitly mentionedcollaborations with NGOs. Wisconsin and Michigan

work with Habitat for Humanity, building affordablehousing and allowing prisoners to learn appropriateskills on the job. Indiana's Department of Correc-tions works with United Way and Good Will Indus-tries on projects that help the community and buildskills for offenders.

Private Companies

Private companies comprise the final group ofpolicy targets mentioned by prison officials and otherrespondents. Companies in Minnesota and Wiscon-sin provide jobs for offenders who still are in prison.Both prison industries and private companies formpartnerships under the Department of Justice PIEprogram. These partnerships provide unique oppor-tunities for inmates to be exposed to and participatein work that will enable them to develop the skillsnecessary to obtain higher paying employment uponrelease from prison.


VII. CONCLUSION

This report provides a preliminary investigationof correctional education and employment-relatedprograms in terms of their effectiveness, the currentpractices, and strategic opportunities and policy tar-gets. The Urban Institute's preliminary investigationsuggests that prison-based programming (education,vocational training, prison industries, employmentservices) can be effective in reducing recidivism andincreasing post-release employment prospects. How-ever, there is as yet no definitive body of researchfirmly establishing this link, or that this link is strong.The assessment also shows that programming par-ticipation rates vary considerably across types ofprograms and among the seven states examined.Finally, it highlights a range of strategic opportunitiesand policy targets that currently exist for improvingand enhancing correctional programming.

0 0I. 0 Prison Programming 25

VIII. REFERENCES

Andrews, D., and J. Bonata. 1994. The Psychology ofCriminal Conduct. Cincinnati, Ohio: Anderson.

Austin, J., and J. Irwin. 2001. It's About Time: America'sImprisonment Binge. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth.

Beck, A., and P. Harrison. 2001. Prisoners in 2000.Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin NCJ 188207.Washington, D.C.

Bushway, S. 2001. Presentation on the effectiveness ofprison-based transitional employment services, given atthe George Washington University Conference,"Correctional Education and Training: Raising theStakes." September 24, 2001.

, and P. Reuter. 1997. "Labor Markets and CrimeRisk Factors." In Preventing Crime: What Works, WhatDoesn't, What's Promising, 6-1 to 6-59. College Park:University of Maryland, Department of Criminologyand Criminal Justice.

. 2002. "Labor Markets and Crime." In Crime:Public Policies for Crime Control, 2d ed., edited byJames Q. Wilson and Joan Petersilia. San Francisco:ICS Press.

Cogswell, S. 1994. Education Behind Bars: Opportunitiesand Obstacles. Columbus, Ohio: Legislative Office ofEducation Oversight.

Cullen, F. T., and P. Gendreau. 2000. "AssessingCorrectional Rehabilitation: Policy, Practice, andProspects." In Criminal Justice 2000: Policies,Processes, and Decisions of the Criminal JusticeSystem, vol. 3, pp. 109-76. Washington, D.C.: U.S.Department of Justice.

Farabee, D., M. Prendergast, J. Cartier, H. Wexler, K.Knight, and M. D. Anglin. 1999. "Barriers toImplementing Effective Correctional Drug TreatmentPrograms." The Prison Journal 79(2), 150-62.

Finn, P. 1998. "Texas' Project RIO." In Program Focus.NCJ 168637. Washington, D.C.: National Institute ofJustice.

Gaes, G., T. Flanagan, L. Motiuk, and L. Stewart. 1999."Adult Correctional Treatment." In Prisons, CriminalJustice: A Review of Research, edited by M. Tonry andJoan Petersilia. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Gerber, J., and E. Fritsch. 1994. "The Effects of Academicand Vocational Program Participation on InmateMisconduct and Reincarceration." In Prison EducationResearch Project: Final Report. Huntsville, Texas:Sam Houston State University.

Glass, G. V. 1976. "Primary, Secondary and Meta-analysis." Educational Researcher 5(10), 3-8.

Illinois Correctional Industries. 2000. Annual ReportFY2000. Springfield, Ill.: Illinois CorrectionalIndustries.

Illinois Department of Corrections. 1999. HumanResources Plan Fiscal Years 1998-2000. Springfield,Ill.: Illinois Department of Corrections.

Indiana Department of Corrections. 2000. FY00 EducationServices Division Annual Report. Indianapolis, Ind.:Indiana Department of Corrections, Education ServicesDivision.

Iowa Department of Corrections. 2000. Five Year Planand Annual Report FY 2000-2001. Des Moines, Iowa:Iowa Department of Corrections.

LoBuglio, S. 2001. "Time to Reframe Politics andPractices in Correctional Education." In the AnnualReview of Adult Learning and Literacy, VoL 2.Cambridge, MA: National Center for the Study ofAdult Learning and Literacy.

Lynch, James P., and William J. Sabol. 2001. "PrisonerReentry in Perspective." Crime Policy Report, Vol. 3.Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute

Michigan Department of Corrections. 1999. "Smokin' JoeVisits Michigan Prisons." FYI Newsletter, Vol. 10, Issue4. http://www.michigan.gov/corrections. (AccessedOctober 5, 2001.)

. 2001. "Michigan State Industries."http://www.michigan.gov/corrections. (AccessedOctober 5, 2001.)

MINNCOR Industries. 2000. MINNCOR Industries FiscalYear 2000 Annual Report. St. Paul, Minn.: MINNCORIndustries/Moose Lake Facility.

National Correctional Industries Association. 1998."Public Policy on Correctional Industries."http://www.nationalcia.org/publicpolicy2.html.(Accessed October 5, 2001.)


. 2001. "PIE Certificate Program."http://www.nationalcia.org/pieprog2.html. (AccessedOctober 5, 2001.)

Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. 2000."Ohio Central School System."http://www.drc.state.oh.us/web/educatio.htm.(Accessed October 5, 2001.)

PEN Products. 2000. 2000 Annual Report. Indianapolis,Ind.: PEN Products.

Piel, A. 1998. "Economic Conditions, Work, and Crime."In The Handbook of Crime and Punishment, edited byMichael Tonry. New York: Oxford University Press.

Saylor, W., and G. Gaes. 1992. "PREP Study LinksUNICOR Work Experience with Successful Post-Release Outcome." Research Forum 1(3), 1-8.

Slambrouck, P. 2000. "Push to Expand Book-LearningBehind Bars." Christian Science Monitor, 15September, p. 3.

Travis, Jeremy, Amy L. Solomon, and Michelle Waul.2001. From Prison to Home: The Dimensions andConsequences of Prisoner Reentry. Washington, D.C.:The Urban Institute.

Wilson, D., and C. Gallagher. 2000. "A Meta-Analysis ofCorrections-Based Education, Vocation, and WorkPrograms for Adult Offenders." Journal of Research inCrime and Delinquency, 37 (4) 347-368.

Wisconsin Department of Corrections. 2000. Fiscal 2000Annual Education Report. Madison, Wisc.: WisconsinDepartment of Corrections, Office of Education,Division of Adult Institutions.


IX. STATE SOURCES

The following reports, documents, and other materialcontributed to this report. Some are not directly citedin the report but nonetheless provided importantcontext for understanding prison programming in theseven states.

Illinois

Illinois Correctional Industries. 2000. Annual ReportFY2000. Springfield, Ill.: Illinois Correctional Industries.

Illinois Department of Corrections. 1999. HumanResources Plan Fiscal Years 1998-2000. Springfield,Ill.: Illinois Department of Corrections.

Illinois Department of Corrections. 2000. 2000 AnnualReport: A New Direction for the 21st Century.Springfield, III.: Illinois Department of Corrections.

Indiana

Indiana Department of Corrections. 2000. FY00Education Services Division Annual Report.Indianapolis, Ind.: Indiana Department of Corrections,Education Services Division.

PEN Products. 2000. 2000 Annual Report. Indianapolis,Ind.: PEN Products.

Iowa

Iowa. Department of Corrections. 2000. Five Year Planand Annual Report FY 2000-2001. Des Moines, Iowa:Iowa Department of Corrections.

Michigan

Michigan Department of Corrections. 1999. "Smokin'Joe Visits Michigan Prisons." FYI Newsletter, Vol. 10,Issue 4. http://www.michigan.gov/corrections.(Accessed October 5, 2001.)

Michigan Department of Corrections. 2000. 2000Annual Report. Lansing, Mich.: Michigan Departmentof Corrections.

Michigan Department of Corrections. 2001. "MichiganState Industries." http://www.michigan.gov/corrections.(Accessed October 5, 2001.)

Minnesota

Minnesota Department of Corrections. 2000. StrategicPlan 2000. St. Paul, Minn.: Minnesota Department ofCorrections.

MINNCOR Industries. 2000. MINNCOR IndustriesFiscal Year 2000 Annual Report. St. Paul, Minn.:MINNCOR Industries/Moose Lake Facility.

Ohio

Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction.1999. 1999 Annual Report. Columbus, Ohio: OhioDepartment of Rehabilitation and Correction.

Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction.2000. "Ohio Central School System."http://www.drc.state.oh.us/web/educatio.htm. (AccessedOctober 5, 2001.)

Ohio Penal Industries. 2000. "OPI CorrectionalIndustries." http://www.opi.state.oh.us/. (AccessedOctober 5, 2001.)

Wisconsin

Grueter, Gary. 2000. Fiscal 2000 Annual EducationReport. Madison, Wisc.: Wisconsin Department ofCorrections.

Kronzer, Steve. 2000. Defining the Future: WisconsinBureau of Correctional Enterprises Annual Report.Madison, Wisc.: Wisconsin Department of Corrections,Bureau of Correctional Enterprises.

Wisconsin Department of Corrections. 2000. Fiscal2000 Annual Education Report. Madison, Wisc.:Wisconsin Department of Corrections, Office ofEducation, Division of Adult Institutions.


U.S. Department of EducationOffice of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI)

National Library of Education (NLE)

Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC)

NOTICE

Reproduction Basis

Educollonal Resources Inliinialion Centel

This document is covered by a signed "Reproduction Release (Blanket)"form (on file within the ERIC system), encompassing all or classes ofdocuments from its source organization and, therefore, does not require a"Specific Document" Release form.

This document is Federally-funded, or carries its own permission toreproduce, or is otherwise in the public domain and, therefore, may bereproduced by ERIC without a signed Reproduction Release form (either"Specific Document" or "Blanket").

EFF-089 (1/2003)

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be ... · 2 juvenile Ohio 45,833 270% 406 26...

Documents

Transcript of Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be ... · 2 juvenile Ohio 45,833 270% 406 26...