EDUCATION PARNERSHIP

1. The Problem. The re-entry of over 600,000 prisoners returning to our communities each year is a national concern. The President has asked Congress to aid such re-entry.

WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS OF THIS EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM? 
The benefits are three-fold::

1.       Crime-costs benefits to the states and nation:
To reduce direct and indirect costs resulting from repeat crime and repeat imprisonment.

2.       Benefit to the community:
To reduce the welfare impact on neighborhoods from returning formerly-incarcerated-persons with poor skills.
To foster offender-provided community service.

3.       Benefit to the offender:
To help the offender develop a work ethic and work skills
To give the offender the chance to be a productive, tax-paying citizen.

WHAT OTHER DATA IS THERE ON CRIME REDUCTION?

It is well documented that education is a prime factor in substantially reducing recidivism. Although recidivism measurement techniques and the interpretations of recidivism data are varied, there are ample data to demonstrate crime reductions. ^{1-20, 24 - 31}

For example, women who participated in college while incarcerated at the Bedford Hills Correctional Facility in New York had only a 7.7% return to custody rate (after 3 years), compared to all female offenders who had a 29.9% return to custody rate.   If a post-GED correctional program is only half as successful as this one, New York State will save a half million dollars, in lower incarceration costs, for each 100 inmates in that program (not counting the many corollary savings involved). ²⁶

Another illustration of the potential of education in prisons is in the article by Dr. H. C. Davis in the October, 1999 issue of the Correctional Education Association publication CEA News and Notes.^13,14  The data given there shows the results of successive levels of education at one prison in Oklahoma:

These results, and those of many other studies, annotated in the attached references, are dramatic. Large reductions in recidivism are sometimes achieved. However, even only a modest 10-15% reduction in recidivism results in significant improvements in public safety and millions of dollars in net savings annually for taxpayers. ^{1-12, 15}

The resulting enhanced capability of formerly-incarcerated-persons to hold a job with a livable wage, will enable their contributions to society. This will be through greater productivity and tax-paying during the rest of their lives. The nation thus receives a major return on its investment in the proposed partnership.

WOULDN'T THIS PROGRAM RESULT IN A HUGE INCREASE IN COSTS OF PELL GRANTS?

Absolutely not. It did not when persons incarcerated were eligible for PELL Grants. During the 1993-1994 academic year, only 0.76 percent (less than one percent) of the national total of PELL grant recipients went to persons incarcerated. They received only 0.65 percent (less then one percent) of the total amount granted. The annual award per incarcerated person was only $1300, since classroom space, room and board, etc. are already paid for. Limiting awards only to those persons willing to commit to substantial repayment would reduce costs further.

WOULDN'T GRANTS TO PERSONS-INCARCERATED TAKE MONEY AWAY FROM OTHERS?

No, it would not. The PELL Grants program is not competitive; and the proposed program would not take away the chances of other students to receive the funding. All students who qualify receive money.

WHAT ABOUT REMOTE EDUCATION DELIVERY?

The reimbursement program could be implemented at any federal or state prison that can arrange with an accredited college, university or technical institute to provide post-secondary academic or vocational education to incarcerated persons at that facility.  Consortia of colleges serving one or more correctional facilities should be encouraged, to enable economy of operations, breadth of curricula and faculty availability. Education delivery could be by classes on prison premises. Delivery could also be by correspondence courses, by distance learning technology, or by College Level Equivalency Program (CLEP) competency examinations.

WHAT EDUCATION COSTS SHOULD BE COVERED BY SUCH PELL GRANTS?

Post-secondary education costs provided by the government would include costs to an inmate during incarceration for:  tuition, books and fees for post-secondary, credit and non-credit, Associate and Baccalaureate-level courses; required testing and graduation fees; tests required for the person-incarcerated; and remedial courses required as a result of testing. These  Post-secondary Costs should be only a fraction of the corresponding costs of  relevant State University systems.
 
HOW MUCH OF THIS COST SHOULD BE REIMBURSED BY THE PERSON INCARCERATED?

While the government will supply the funds, through PELL grants, to cover such Post-secondary Costs, the student-inmate should be responsible to pay back Reimbursable Costs, defined here as between 50% and 100% of the Post-secondary Costs, depending on the opportunities for working off this debt through productive work or community service during incarceration.

While a revision of PELL grants for prisoners must be made, so as to supply a source of funding for this program, PELL grants would not change the work/repayment/reparation philosophy of this program. In the spirit of equity-restorative justice, this program requires that persons-incarcerated should work for and re-pay their Reimbursable Post-Secondary Costs for the education they obtain while incarcerated; and this can be done through cash payments into victims' reparation funds, or credits for productive work and/or community service .

WHAT ABOUT OTHER SOURCES OF FINANCIAL AID?

When and if an inmate-student qualifies for non-PELL grants and/or scholarship funding, such as financial aid from college, foundation or other private sources, the inmate’s Reimbursable Costs should  be reduced accordingly.
 

WHEN WOULD Offender Payments BE MADE?
Payment should be required for courses attended, and not for courses terminated early by the person-incarcerated or necessarily terminated by transfer or disciplinary actions. Offenders may make payment of Reimbursable Costs during incarceration or after release.

HOW COULD CREDITS FOR WORK DURING INCARCERATION BE HANDLED?

Productive work and the work ethic, with incentives for advancement, are important parts of the education process. We favor granting credits towards payment of the Reimbursable Costs that could be accumulated in proportion to the productive work and/or community service done during incarceration. (Community service may, for example, include assigned teaching and tutoring of prisoners by other prisoners.) 

The amount of such credits could, for example, be based on the Fair Market Wage, defined as the rate paid for work of a similar nature in outside communities. The credit earned might be only a percentage of the Fair Market Wages, -say,  between 20% and 60%.

However, rewards for work and community service vary from prison to prison. Different approaches are possible. 
 

WHAT ABOUT REMAINING PAYMENTS AFTER RELEASE?

Any outstanding balance of Reimbursable Cost that was not paid by the person-incarcerated during incarceration (through credits for certified work or community service) must be repaid by the formerly-incarcerated-person after release.

Monthly payments could commence within 24 months of release, after the formerly-incarcerated-person has established himself in a stable employment and environment. Deferments to 36 months should be allowed in cases of employment in public service or as a volunteer in a tax exempt service organization. Payments may be in certified community service. 

HOW MUCH DEBT WOULD BE INVOLVED?

If too large, the amount of debt after release could be a very heavy burden on struggling, formerly-incarcerated-persons. It could be counterproductive and lead to more failure and re-incarceration. The repayment program is designed to avoid this by encouraging payments through productive work and community service during incarceration.

Based on an expected instructional cost of about $3,000 per inmate per year of full-time study, and $500 per inmate per year of books and other costs, the aggregate post-secondary costs per inmate will be about $3500 per year. With-say, a 60% reimbursement rate, the Reimbursable Costs would be $2,100 per year, or  $4,200 for a two year Associate’s degree and $8,400 for a four year Bachelor’s degree, assuming no state, college, or other financial aid, which could reduce these amounts further.

HOW ABOUT WORKING IT OFF DURING INCARCERATION?

That might be possible. As an example, assuming the estimate of $3500 per year fees for tuition and books, 60% repayment, a $5 or more Fair Market Hourly Wage, credits for one-half of that Fair Market Hourly Wage, and 20 hours per week of productive work or community service, the accumulated credits during one work year of 52 weeks, would amount to $2,600, or more than the annual Reimbursable Costs.

HOW CAN QUALITY OF INSTRUCTION BE ASSURED?

The U.S. Dept. of Education should receive, annually, verification that a specific Pell Grant repayment program exists in each  participating penal institution. 

Inmate post-secondary education programs should be included as part of each participating prison’s accreditation process.

The Federal and State Departments of Correctional Services should monitor the recidivism rates of participating offenders at each of their  participating penal institution, and include such data in periodic reports of the Correctional Services

 
WHAT ABOUT CORRECTIONAL STAFF PARTICIPATION?

The arrangements for post-secondary education at correctional facilities could also be used for on-site professional development of correctional staff, including corrections officers, correctional teachers, counselors, nurses, and other staff.  Provision may be made for the delivery of post-secondary education, by the same or different colleges, to correctional staff.

This post secondary education program could, for example, help to keep correctional teachers up to date, to broaden staff  knowledge in relevant areas like operations management, conflict management, psychology, and sociology, and to develop deeper understandings in the related fields of addiction, mental health issues, and youth problems.

The same mechanisms of administrative tracking and processing of post-secondary invoices and purchase vouchers might be used. Tuition refund procedures for correctional staff should be instituted at the discretion of the departments involved.

CONCLUSIONS

1.     There is conclusive evidence that post-secondary correctional education reduces recidivism and crime  substantially. The educational process is effective.

2.     In the long run, such education costs the state nothing; rather it results in lower recidivism with lower incarceration costs and lower collateral costs, and a major economic benefit to the state. The educational process is economical.

3.     Such education saves lives. It has major societal ramifications not only on the prisoners but also on their families, including their children. The educational process is broadly beneficial to society.
 

4.      Making prisoners economically responsible for at least part of the expense of their post-secondary education is fiscally and socially sensible.
 

5.      Allowing prisoners to work off all or part of their obligation to pay back for their education, through productive work and community service, is fair and equitable. That requirement for re-payment makes the program socially acceptable.
 

6.      Taking further advantage of on-site education for professional development of correctional staff could be a viable means of promoting a more effective justice system.

The real action is in the hearts and minds of those pursuing higher education. To try to understand the deep psychological effects of the opportunity to pursue correctional education, one might listen to the voices of prisoners and ex-offenders who had that experience.
 

Voice # 1

“Education is a positive form of growth, from which I have learned to improve myself to a point that would not have been possible if it wasn’t for the educational opportunities that had been afforded to me. Education is the key to self improvement, which is what rehabilitation is all about. Give a man an education, and you give that man an opportunity to be a man.”

Voice # 2

“I remember going to my first graduation at Bedford. I was new here, with a lot of time, very angry and getting into trouble a lot. School wasn’t my thing. At graduation, everyone who had earned a certificate or their GED or college degree was called up to receive their diplomas. This one college graduate had started out an ABE student (less than sixth grade reading level) and had made it all the way through college. When she was called up, everyone in the whole place went wild cheering her. I said to myself, ‘I want  that to be me someday.’ Maybe that was my first goal ever in life. That’s when I began to change my attitude in here.”

 Voice # 3

“I find education in prison to be the bridge that helps one cross over from one phase of life to another. Using the tool of education, one can transform and mold his mind to think and act rationally, ... to make proper choices instead of inappropriate ones.”

Voice # 4

“Many men come to prison not realizing they have choices of opportunities in life, because they do not have an education. Education to me means never having to come back to prison again. I now have the social skills required to remain a productive member of society and will go on to advocate that education was the key to my personal fulfillment of understanding who I am.”

Voice # 5

“I want to further my education for my sake and for my kid’s sake. I want them to see that if their mother can do it, they can do it, too. You’ve got to be a role model for them.   College keeps me out of trouble, too. It keeps my head together, with positive thinking. My mind is on studies, not in gossip or making trouble.”

Voice # 6

“I came  to Bedford a battered woman, after years of abuse. A lot of wonderful women helped me. College gave me back my self esteem. Getting an education then helped me to give something back. I started by tutoring others. As I learned more, I realized I could do more. It made me understand my life of rape and battering, so I could help others. I began to understand people and seeing redeemable qualities in them, so they can turn around, too. Now I work with women as they come in to prison, telling them how far I’ve come; telling them, ‘You can do it, too!’ ” 

Voice # 7

“Education has allowed me to free myself from the shackles that were holding me in bondage - the values and morals I chose to live by.  When I first received my GED, I felt a sense of self worth. The achievement said to me that I can like myself, and I could be something in life, if I tried. I began not to look at myself as a failure in life, but as a man who found a meaningful way to understand and cope with life in a realistic manner.”


Voice # 8

“What does education in prison mean to me, anyway? Is it a chance to be pushed beyond my intellectual limits? Is it a chance to learn who I am? Is it a chance to have opportunities, to have options, to have liberation and freedom to express oneself, to work, to grow, to achieve, to prosper ...? Is it finding myself in a triple consciousness, the one being spiritual, the other being African American, with the latter being little old me?  It is everything I am and everything I am not. It is all of these things and more; it is the reason I learned to adore.”

 
Voice # 9

“When I first came to prison, I was lost, just wandering. I had only a tenth grade education. Because of my poor English, I started from the bottom. I took the Adult Basic Education classes, then the GED classes. I passed the GED. It was such a good feeling. I did something for myself. I saw I could learn.   I didn’t think, when I came here, that I could ever go to college. I saw how others went to college, and said to myself, ‘Why not me?’  I need to support myself and my family. I decided to try.  I had many inmate tutors helping me. Now my English is pretty good. Now I feel a lot better about myself.  I can relate a lot of what I’ve learned in psychology to what I’ve been through, and to others I know, too. I’m now an AIDS Counselor, and what I learn helps me to help others. Education makes a lot of difference.”

 
Voice #10

“Education for me has been a force. It has allowed me to understand the conditions we live in, how I got there, and where I may be headed.  It is the well that I use daily to draw from. Usually violence results from frustration and a lack of understanding. However, education allows me to look at my circumstances and decide how I might be able to best solve a problem.”


Voice # 11

“Education makes you feel better about yourself. It empowers you to reason better, to act better, and to help others. I was 17 years old when I was arrested. I didn’t have my GED. Now I have my Bachelor’s Degree. I teach other women in the parenting programs and I work in a peer counseling program for long-term women. My college courses have helped me to be able to talk to people better and to understand their needs, to hold a position of leadership and to feel confident in it.”

Voice # 12

“I would like to share with you the voice that now resonates in my mind, that of Charles L. Kammer, ‘To develop humanly we need education, rational development. We need to understand ourselves and our world, for such knowledge frees us from many natural and social constraints and gives us the power to more fully control our lives.’ Higher education programs are a CURE.”

Voice # 13

“Because I had a college degree when I came out of prison, my chances of obtaining a good job were increased. Thanks to my degree, I do not think about or have the desire to go back to the life of crime to support myself and my children. I am enthusiastic about my career in counseling and plan to go on to graduate school to pursue a degree in social work. My college education will also help stop the cycle of second generations going to prison because my goal is to educate my children.”

Voice # 14

“I find education in prison to be the bridge that helps one cross over from one phase of life to another. It is both the catalyst and mechanism that changes the lives of men of good will in prison environments. Using the tool of education, one can transform and mold his mind to think and act rationally, and to make proper choices instead of inappropriate ones.”

Voice # 15

“Over the years of my incarceration, I have been involved in various programs designed to instill positive change in prisoners. I’ve come to understand that a liberal arts college education is the only totally rehabilitating program ever offered inside NYSDOCS. A liberal arts education successfully addresses the underlying problem because it addresses the prisoner as a whole person and addresses the cause, - not just the symptom. 

Voice # 16

“I know the people out there don’t like me very much. And I know they are afraid of me. But I am not that person any more. They can stop being afraid. I am not a drug addict anymore. I am not a thief anymore. I am not a drug dealer anymore. I am a college student. I am an educated woman. I am a mother. And some day, I will have a degree. So when I get out, I can get a job and support myself and my children. I had to come to prison to get an education. We learned about irony in our writing class. This is irony. But it has a happy ending. My children will come to my college graduation here at Bedford Hills, and then when I am released, I will go to their college graduation. That is not irony. That is hope.

Voice # 17

“It is our (Auburn Lifer’s Committee) overall position that such a crime victims restitution fund would serve to compensate for some of the damage done to communities ravaged by crime. We believe that this type of program (TR-W/R) could serve as a reference point for healing for both the parolee (being accountable for their actions) and victims in knowing some form of restitution beyond punishment for the crime will be obtained. It is our position that this proposal should be presented as both a moral and criminal-justice/corrections matter, that serves a multi-faceted purpose.

References

1 Dennis J. Stevens and Charles S. Ward, “College Education and Recidivism: Educating Criminals Meritorious,” Journal of Correctional Education, Vol. 48, Issue 3, September 1997, pp. 106-111.

This paper reports on a number of educational programs with recidivism defined as the re- incarceration for a criminal offense (other than a technical violation of parole):

Alabama: The general prison population recidivism rate in any given 12 month period averages 35% as compared to 1%  for those inmates who completed post-secondary degrees.

Maryland: 46% of those inmates released from the general prison population of 19,014 inmates were returned to prison within three years of their release as compared to none of the 120 inmates who had received degrees while in prison.

New York: 26% of the inmates who earned a college degree while incarcerated were returned to prison compared with 45% of New York’s general prison population.

Texas: Of the 60 men and women who had earned degrees and were released, 10% returned to prison. Generally, the recidivism rate of most inmates in Texas is 36%.  The state projects a $6.6 million savings for every one percent reduction in recidivism.

  ² Mary Ellen Batiuk, “The State of Post-Secondary Education in Ohio,” Journal of Correctional Education, Vol. 48, Issue 2, June 1997, pp. 70-72.

Only individuals who had completed Associate Degrees (two years of college) were included in the college sample since there were too few Bachelors completers to comprise an adequate sample size. While the overall recidivism rate was 40%, college recidivism rates were at 18%.

Other calculations suggest that graduating from college programs - in contrast to no participation in prison education at all - reduces recidivism by roughly 72%.

Under the new plan, the Dept. of Rehabilitation and Correction will fund 2623 inmate college students, based on a formula where 10% of the population of minimum security institutions, 8% of the population in medium institutions, and 4% of the population at close-security institutions will be eligible for post-secondary classes.

³ Stephen Duguid, “Cognitive Dissidents Bite the Dust - The Demise of University Education in Canada’s Prisons,” Journal of Correctional Education, Vol. 48, issue 2, June 1997, pp.  56-68.

We have followed up the post-release lives of 654 federal inmates during the period 1973-1993.  All were men who had completed at least two university courses for credit while in one of several federal prisons.  An immediately interesting fact about the prisoners in this study is that as a group they did better than the norm in that only 25% of the 654 subjects recidivated in the three years following their release - a 50% reduction compared to the Canadian recidivism rate.

Utilizing the recidivism prediction system (SIR), we were able to compare how groups of prisoner-students were predicted to perform with how they actually performed after release. (The SIR score uses indicators such as type of offense, number of offenses, age at first arrest, and marital status.)

·         For those in the mid range of risk where the SIR predicted success rate was 50%,  after at least two university courses had been taken, the actual success rate was 73%, a difference of 23 percentage points, and a relative improvement of 46%.

·         For those at the low end of risk where the SIR predicted success rate was 80%, after at least two university courses had been taken, the actual success rate was 98%, a difference of 18% and a relative improvement of 23%.

·         For those at the high end of risk where the SIR predicted success rate was only 33%, after at least two university courses had been taken, the actual success rate was 45%, a difference of 12% and a relative improvement of 36%.

⁴ Allen J. Beck, Ph.D., “Recidivism of Young Parolees” Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report, May 1987.

                The percent of parolees who within 6 years of release were re incarcerated:

                                Education Less Than High School                   51%

                                High School Graduate                                     43%

                                Some College                                                  31%

⁵   "The Impact of Correctional Education On Recidivism 1988-1994,"  Office of Correctional Education, U.S. Dept. of Education.

This report contains summaries of diverse programs, including the following:

 A report of the Adult Probation Dept. of the Superior Court, Pima County, Arizona concludes that offenders given literacy training in 1994 had a lower new felony arrest rate (23%) compared to a control group (40%).   Offenders given a GED education in 1994 had a lower new felony arrest rate (15%) than a control group (40%).

 A 1994 State of Texas report (Tracy and Johnson, Windham School System) found that the recidivism rate for those who received both a GED certificate and completed a vocational trade was over 20% lower than for those who did not reach either milestone. That Texas report also showed that two years after release, the overall recidivism rate for degree holders was a low 12%, and inversely differentiated by type of degree: Associate, 13.7%; Baccalaureate, 5.6%; Masters, 0%.

  ⁶   Miles Harer, "Recidivism Among Federal Prisoners Released in 1987," Federal Bureau Of Prisons, Office of Research & Evaluation, 1994.

Recidivism rates were inversely related to educational program participation while in prison. The more educational programs successfully completed for each 6 months confined, the lower the recidivism rate.

⁷    Chester H. Clark, Asst. Commissioner, "Analysis of Return Rates of the Inmate College Program Participants," NYS Dept. of Correctional Services, August, 1991.

Inmate College Program participants in 1986-1987 who had earned a degree were found to return at a significantly lower rate than participants who did not earn a degree. Of those earning a degree, 26.4% had been returned to the Department's custody by Feb. 28, 1991, whereas 44.6% of those participants who did not earn a degree were returned to custody. Degree earning participants also returned at a lower rate than would be expected when compared to the overall male return rate. These findings suggest that earning a college degree while incarcerated is positively related to successful post-release adjustment as measured by return to the Department's custody.

⁸  Jon M. Taylor, “Post Secondary Correctional Education: An Evaluation of Effectiveness and Efficiency,”  Journal of Correctional Education, Vol. 43, Issue 3, Sept. 1992, pp. 132-141.

Bureau of Justice Statistics (1987) reports that in two studies those offenders with at least some college education recidivated at the rate of 30.4 and 31 percent, while respectively,  high school dropouts from the same sample recidivated at rates of 40.9 and 51 percent.

 In 1974, Thomas reported in an in-house study that the Burlington County College of New Jersey prison program experienced a recidivism rate of 10 percent compared to an overall national recidivism rate of 80 percent.

 Thompson (1976) in his in-house evaluation of Alexander’s City State Junior College’s prison program stated that a “State recidivism rate of 16% compared with a state and national recidivism rate of  70-75%.”

 Duguid (1981) reporting on an objective analysis of the University of Victoria’s prison college program noted “the rate of recidivism for the students as 14% compared to 52% of the matched group of non-student prisoners.”

 Chase and Dickover (1983) reporting on the evaluation of the Folsom Prison college program revealed a zero percent recidivism rate for the released participants over one year, while the average recidivism rate for the state’s parolees was 23.9 percent for the first year, increasing to 55 percent within three years.

 Psychology Today (1983) reported “the rate of recidivism among inmates who took college classes at New Mexico State Penitentiary between 1967 and 1977 averaged 15.5 percent, while the general population averaged 68 percent recidivism.”

⁹  Marian O’Neill, “Correctional Higher Education: Reduced Recidivism?” Journal of Correctional Education, Vol. 41, Issue 1, March 1990, pp. 28-31.

Of the total number of 258 educationally qualified (at Alabama’s Alexander City Junior College and J. F. Ingram State Technical College), 92 percent were still out in the free world and 7.7% were recidivists. This is a much lower recidivism rate than for the entire 1983 release population which the State calculated at 25%. 11.5 % of those that had not participated in PSE  recidivated and 3.9% of those who had participated in PSE  recidivated.

¹⁰ Heidi L. Lawyer and Thomas D. Dertinger, "Back to School or Back to Jail,"  ABA Criminal Justice, Winter 1993, p. 21.

A 1983 study at Folsom Prison in California showed that none of the prisoners there who earned bachelor's degrees recidivated, compared to the 55 percent recidivism rate of the rest of the prisoners released .

¹¹   M.E. Batiuk, P. Moke, P. W. Rounree, “Crime and Rehabilitation: Correctional Education as an Agent of Change- A Research Note,” Justice Quarterly, Vol. 14, No. 1, March 1997.

We use a quasi-experimental time-series analysis of 318 male inmates who left a medium security prison in Ohio between 1982 and 1983.  95 of these received associate’s degrees in prison.  The other 223 were randomly selected inmates which included some completing less than 3 months of college, some high school graduates, and some high school dropouts.

The exponentiated coefficient for the college education variable suggests that participation in the Wilmington College program for at least two years reduced the odds of recidivism by roughly 58 percent.

When all three models are taken together, college education does reduce the likelihood of recidivism, but this effect works principally through post release employment. That is, college education increases the likelihood of post release employment, which in turn reduces the risk of recidivism.

¹²  M. E. Batiuk and P. Moke, “Education in Ohio Prisons: An Analysis of Recidivism Rates.” An unpublished research paper.

Since race, youth, number of prior convictions and property offenses are all significantly related to higher rates of recidivism, (we) show how these high risk factors relate to recidivism in general and specifically by educational programs.

For young black offenders, non-participation in any program increases the likelihood of recidivism. For black property offenders, educational participation reduces recidivism. For blacks with prior convictions, college programs reduce recidivism.

 For offenders under 31 with prior convictions, GED programs are most effective. For property offenders under 31 and under 25, non-participation in educational programs significantly increases recidivism.

Finally, for black property offenders with prior convictions, college programs reduce recidivism dramatically. In fact, college programs once again reduce recidivism in each of the high risk categories examined here.

Again, the converse is also true - educational programming can also further and dramatically reduce recidivism among low risk groups.

Recent studies of federal inmates indicates that recidivism rates decrease for each additional level of educational attainment inmates achieve (Harer, 1995). Our findings likewise indicate that higher levels of educational achievement, here obtaining associate’s degrees, also lead to greater reductions in recidivism rates.

Thus, synthesizing the three studies, three conclusions arise: (1) all correctional educational programs reduce recidivism rates; (2) the more education offenders receive the lower their recidivism rates are; and (3) post-secondary correctional education programs reduce recidivism the most.

¹³ Dr. H. C. Davis, “Correctional Education: Success and Hope,” Correctional Education Association News and Notes, October 1999.

Data collected at the Eddie Warrior Correctional Center, Taft, OK, states that recidivism rates there fell from 85% for those with no education to 43% with literacy, 12% with a GED, 8% with some college, and 3% with a college degree.

“The costs in the state of Oklahoma for ABE and GED programs are $700 per year per student and $1500 per year for post secondary students.”

“If you take one person that does not come back for a second time you have created a savings to the state of approximately $225,000 over the rest of their life span.”

¹⁴ Dr. H. C. Davis, “Correctional Education: The Ticket Home,” Inside Corrections, August 1998.

“Eddie Warrior Correctional Center not only emphasizes the academic, but also the psychological and social elements that are extremely important in the inmate’s ability to be released and not recidivate. We have a dedicated and caring staff that serve as excellent role models for their inmate students. Combine this with Daily Living Skills seminars, Moral Reconation Therapy, and positive interaction between staff and student and it accounts for our success.”

¹⁵ Dr. Rudy J. Cypser, “Post Secondary Correctional Education Reduces Recidivism and Saves Money,”  CURE-NY Report, February 26, 1999.

Experience shows that prison college programs result in a recidivism difference of 18-38 percentage points  below control groups.^1-14  This has major economic consequences.

16 Anton R.Waldon, Jr., “Unhealthy Choice: Prisons Over Schools in New York State,”  A Report from the office of NY State Senator Alton R. Waldon, Jr., April, 1996.

Seventy-five percent of all inmates in the State’s prisons have no high school diploma and 90 percent of all inmates in New York City jails have no high school diploma or equivalent. Forty percent of all state prison inmates are unable to read, and between 50 and 70 percent of the adult inmate population in the city’s jails reads English below the sixth grade level.

There is a relationship between our children’s education (or lack thereof) and the rate of crime in the neighborhoods where school performance is low. …  We are pouring precious state resources into corrections at the expense of fixing our broken educational system.

Society gains an estimated $500,000 in tax revenue and avoided social costs for every child who is saved from becoming a criminal justice statistic. 

¹⁷ “Longitudinal Study finds Lower Re-arrest Rates in AIP,” State of Connecticut Judicial Branch Sanctions Update, May 1996 Special Edition.

This study measured how offenders from each sample get arrested relative to the days they are actually in the community. In this way, the number of days offenders in each sample have the opportunity to be arrested for new crimes is kept the same. The rates for AIP and DOC are then compared to one another to produce a ratio.

 Sixty-four percent of AIC clients with high school diplomas were arrest-free after two years, compared to forty-four percent of those with less than a high school education.

¹⁸  “Behind Bars: Substance Abuse and America’s Prison Population,” The National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA)  at Columbia University, January 1998

If 10 percent of the inmates who are given one year of residential treatment and training (GED plus vocational training) stay sober and work during the first year after release, the investment is more than returned in economic benefits. Even with this difficult inmate population, a 15 percent success rate should be achievable with a full scale residential treatment program accompanied by appropriate health care and educational and job training services.

Thereafter the nation would receive an economic benefit of more than $8 billion for each year they remain sober and employed.

 ¹⁹ Recidivism decreases with increased education and any necessary drug treatment. The National Center on Addiction and substance Abuse (CASA) at Columbia University¹⁸ has established an estimate of the monetary returns to the community when an ex-offender does not recidivate.  These benefits include:

      ·         $5000 in reduced crime costs per year (a low estimate).
·         $7,300 in reduced arrest and prosecution costs.
·         $32,100 economic benefits ($21,400 - the average income for an employed high school graduate, multiplied by the standard economic multiplier of 1.5 for estimating local economic effects of a wage).
 

New York State prison costs are about $30,000 per prisoner per year. Other, not included collateral costs are: increases in welfare, foster care, aggravated health care, and other entitlements.

For illustration, assume for those who do recidivate:  a 3-6 year crime life, only one more arrest, and only one more  sentence of 2-10 years in prison. The above criminal justice costs and economic losses then range from $146,500 to $658,300 per offender who recidivates. That’s about how much could be saved if only one offender does not recidivate and is instead gainfully employed.

New York State releases about 30,000 prisoners each year. Currently most are uneducated, many are addicted, and most are therefore incapable of holding down a job paying a livable wage. Suppose, instead,  we spend $12,500 for each of 10,000 prisoners: for GED and vocational training ($3000), and a full year of intensive alcohol and/or drug treatment ($3500), and two years of post secondary education ($6000). All that would cost $125 million. Considering this expense and the above costs from recidivating, one finds that to break even, only 2-9% of these 10,000 prisoners would have to be successful and not recidivate.

In fact, there is evidence that with education and drug treatment, recidivism rates can be reduced by more than 15  percentage points. If we assume only a 15 percentage point drop in recidivism, the gross savings from the investment would be  $219 to $987 million. The net saving, then, would be $94 to $862 million. 

²⁰ CEA News & Notes, Vol. 15, No. 2, April, 1993.

²¹ Teaching  Adults With Learning Disabilities,  ERIC Digest No 99, Clearinghouse on Adult, Career, and Vocational Education.

²² Ross, J. M. "Learning Disabled Adults: Who are They and What do We do with Them?"  Lifelong Learning 11, No. 3 (1987): 4-7,11.  (ERIC No. EJ 361 993).

²³ C. J. Hynes and S. A. Powers, "Drug Treatment Alternative To Prison of the Kings County District Attorney, Fifth Annual Report of Operations, Oct. 1994 to Oct. 1995."

The Brooklyn, NY Drug Treatment Alternative to Prison (DTAP) program, diverts prison-bound felony drug offenders to residential drug treatment for 15 to 24 months.  The 19% recidivism rate for DTAP's graduates, in contrast to a 46% rate for similar defendants who did not participate in the program, is the most recent evidence of DTAP's success. 

²⁴   "The Impact of Correctional Education On Recidivism 1988-1994,"  Office of Correctional Education, U.S. Dept. of Education.

This report contains summaries of diverse programs, including the following:

A report of the Adult Probation Dept. of the Superior Court, Pima County, Arizona concludes that offenders given literacy training in 1994 had a lower new felony arrest rate (23%) compared to a control group (40%).   Offenders given a GED education in 1994 had a lower new felony arrest rate (15%) than a control group (40%).

A 1994 State of Texas report (Tracy and Johnson, Windham School System) found that the recidivism rate for those who received both a GED certificate and completed a vocational trade was over 20% lower than for those who did not reach either milestone. That Texas report also showed that two years after release, the overall recidivism rate for degree holders was a low 12%, and inversely differentiated by type of degree: Associate, 13.7%; Baccalaureate, 5.6%; Masters, 0%.

²⁵   Miles Harer, "Recidivism Among Federal Prisoners Released in 1987," Federal Bureau Of Prisons, Office of Research & Evaluation, 1994.

Recidivism rates were inversely related to educational program participation while in prison. The more educational programs successfully completed for each 6 months confined, the lower the recidivism rate.

²⁶  Michelle Fine, “The Impact of College in a Maximum Security Prison for women: Effects on Women, Prison
    Environment, Reincarceration and Post-Release Outcomes,”  CUNY April 2001

                Women who participate in college while in prison had a 7.7% return to custody rate, compared to all female
                 offenders released between 1985 an 1995, who had a 29.9% return to custody rate, within 36 months.

²⁸  "Impact of Educational Achievement of Inmates in the Windham School District on Recidivism," August 2000, Tony Fabelo, Ph.D., Executive Director, Criminal Justice Policy Council, http://www.cjpc.state.tx.us/wsdrec10.pdf

Let your voice be heard. See the Action Page

To return to the Home Page, click: