INMATE EDUCATION AND REDUCTION OF RECIDIVISM
Before the New York State Senate Democratic
Task Force on Criminal Justice Reform
December 4, 2000
State Office Building, Brooklyn, New York
Presented by
Annette Johnson, Ph.D., J.D.
Member, Balancing Justice Task Force on Correctional Education
I want to begin by thanking you, Senator Montgomery and members of the Task force for convening this public forum and for recognizing that, in the discussion of transitional services and reentry of ex-prisoners into society, inmate education provides an effective, cost-efficient but largely unrealized opportunity to break the cycle of crime and create safer communities.
The Task Force on Correctional Education grew out of the Balancing Justice Project of the New York State League of Women Voters. I am one of the nearly 2000 ordinary citizens who came together repeatedly last year in small study groups throughout the state of New York to study and discuss criminal justice issues in New York State. You have already heard the testimony of Ruth Cusack of the League who described this project in greater detail. The Task Force on Correctional Education, a joint task force with the New York State Department of Education, is one of the action initiatives undertaken to address important issues identified by the study groups. In addition to conducting a comprehensive review of reported research concerning the effectiveness of inmate education in reducing repeat offenses, my colleagues and I have interviewed correctional educators, ex-offenders, and families and attorneys of current inmates concerning the effectiveness and current availability of educational programs in New York State prisons.
Education and Recidivism
This past year, 1999, more than 28,000 New Yorkers were released from New York State prisons back into the community, after having served, on average, 36 months in custody. (New York State Department of Correctional Services, Admissions and Releases 1999) Based upon historical percentages over the past ten years, 43% (roughly 12,040 individuals) will be returned to prison within a three-year period after release. (New York State Department of Correctional Services, 1995 Releases: Three Year Post Release Follow-up) Studies elsewhere document that Inmates who have recidivated before do so again at significantly higher rates than those who have not.
These rearrest rates are testimony to the fact that incarceration alone is not working to prevent or reduce crime. Moreover, as we have heard repeatedly today, incarceration is more expensive and less effective at preventing future crime than are alternatives. Yet, in response to what legislators believe is a growing fear of crime and a desire on the part of the public for more punitive measures to combat this fear, our legislators and policy makers have promoted building more prisons, enacting harsher sentencing legislation and eliminating strategies and programs that actually work to prevent crime. You, Senator Montgomery, have been steadfast in opposing this, and we commend you for your persistent call for rational reform of the criminal justices system.
A vast body of research demonstrates that educational programming in correctional facilities is one of the most effective forms of crime prevention. Educational skills can help deter young people from committing criminal acts and can greatly decrease the likelihood that people will return to crime after release from prison. Apart from the obvious connection between education and employability, which enables ex-offenders to find employment after release, quality educational programs produce a change in thinking and outlook both during the time that the individual is incarcerated and after release. Correctional officers as well as educators appreciate the difference in a prison environment when there is a core of individuals engaged in educational activities.
The annotated bibliographies appended to this testimony contain summaries and citations of the many reports that have found that prison-based education has a dramatic impact on recidivism. Only last month, the Correctional Education Association, a national professional development organization for educators working in correctional settings, released preliminary data on the Three-State recidivism Study, conducted over a four-year period in Maryland, Minnesota and Ohio, involving more than 3,400 inmates, which found a significant and dramatic difference in the rate of recidivism--relapse into crime--between prisoners who participated in educational programs and those who did not. Funded through a $500,000 grant from the U.S. Department of Education, the study set out to learn the impact of education programs for inmates on their behavior after release, namely employment and future arrests. On the basis of preliminary data, putting money into educational programs is a good investment. The savings generated from reduction in crime, reduction in incarceration, reduction in social welfare costs and the increased economic benefit to the community from wages and tax revenue of employed ex-offenders who would otherwise likely be re-imprisoned more than compensates for the cost of the educational programs. Information about this study and an annotated list of 24 studies that have found similarly positive results is also appended to this testimony. This study follows on the heels of a 1995 study by the Federal Bureau of Prisons, Office of Research and Evaluation, "Prison Education Program Participation and Recidivism: a Test of the Normalization Hypothesis." In a carefully constructed study of 619 persons released from federal prison after serving more than one year, the researcher used a multivariate approach to identify and measure all the individual and environmental factors thought to influence both participation in educational programs in prison and recidivism and to control for these measures when assessing program effects. Among the factors controlled for was post-release employment. The study demonstrated that inmates' participation in educational programs reduces the likelihood of recidivism by at least 15 %. Because post-release employment was controlled for, the results of this analysis provide substantial evidence that prison education program participation reduces the likelihood of recidivating irrespective of post-release employment. The researcher interprets this result as support for the hypothesis that educational programs reduce the negative effects of "prisonization" (the alienation from prison staff and from the larger society that facilitates the growth of inmate subcultures and supports a continuation of criminal behavior after release from prison) and nurture prosocial norms that support law-abiding behavior.
This study, as well as more recent studies (described in the appended Selected Bibliography) of state prisoners conducted on a system-wide basis in Texas, Florida and Utah, among others, analyzes the potential cost savings to society by the calculated reductions in recidivism and provides overwhelming justification for the expenditure of taxpayer dollars to attack crime and create a safer society by changing rather than re-incarcerating criminals.
A consistent finding in all the studies is that the higher the educational attainment of an inmate at time of release, the greater the likelihood that he/she will not return to prison. The recent studies of the Texas and Florida systems are especially noteworthy because they demonstrate the greater effectiveness of "academic" education over vocational training in reducing recidivism.
Indeed, many studies have demonstrated the dramatic impact of post-secondary education in changing the lives of prisoners. James Gilligan, who spent 25 years as a prison psychiatrist, including as the director of mental health for the Massachusetts prison system, reported on a study conducted under his direction to see what programs within the prison had been most effective in preventing recidivism among prison inmates after they had been released from prison and returned to the community. While several programs had worked, the most successful of all, and the only one that had been 100 per cent effective in preventing recidivism, was the program that allowed inmates to receive a college degree while in prison. At a widely-reported public lecture at Harvard, Dr. Gilligan reported that several hundred prisoners in Massachusetts had completed at least a bachelor's degree while in prison over a 25-year period, and not one of them had been returned to prison for a new crime. Unfortunately, when this report reached Governor William Weld, who had not previously known that prison inmates could take college courses, he conducted a press conference and declared that Massachusetts
should rescind that "privilege." Shortly thereafter Congress declared that inmates would no longer be eligible for Pell grants. (See appended Selected Bibliography for citations.)
In New York, also, the last study of the effectiveness of post-secondary education, conducted for the Department of Correctional Services in 1991, found that completion of a college degree by inmates greatly reduced the likelihood that the inmate would commit a further crime. The study showed that only 26.4% of inmates who had been awarded a college degree were returned to the Department's custody, whereas 44.6% of those who withdrew from the program or were administratively removed had been returned to prison after release, contrasting with the general return rate for the same time period of 47.4% for inmates who had not participated in the program.
Today, with the expansion of technologically-based learning tools, satellite programs, audio and video taped courses for distance learning, and old-fashioned self-directed study with college credit by College Level Equivalency Program testing, there are many relatively inexpensive means by which to provide education to inmates. The STAR program for satellite-based learning for young offenders, which is being piloted in New York State, as well as Texas and Florida, is just one example. Even online internet programs can be made secure so that they can be used without fear of breaching prison secuirty.
New York State Today
As we have heard today, there are now more than 71,000 incarcerated persons in New York State prisons. Of the 71,466 individuals who were under custody on January 1, 2000, more than half--54%, or 38,667 individuals--had not achieved a high school diploma or GED. Of the inmates whose first language is English, almost 19,000 read below the 8th grade level; almost 8,000 read below the 5th grade level. New York State Department of Correctional Services, The Hub System: Profile of Inmates under Custody on January 1, 2000)
The Department of Correctional Services (DOCS) recognizes the importance of educational programs to fulfill the objective of correctional education as stated in New York State Correction Law, Section 136:
The objective of correctional education in its broadest sense should be the socialization of the inmates. . . .The objective of this program shall be the return of these inmates to society with a more wholesome attitude toward living, with a desire to conduct themselves as good citizens and with the skills and knowledge which will give them a reasonable chance to maintain themselves and their dependents through honest labor.
To this end, enrollment in academic education programs is mandatory for inmates with a reading or math level below 8th grade, and for all inmates who are under 21, without a degree (DOCS Directive #4804, Academic Program Policies). Under DOCS policies, reading at the 8th grade level is a requirement in order to take the GED examination. As stated in the DOCS 1999 Education Annual Report, however:
In December of 1999, there were 15, 737 inmates in the general confinement population who had a reading or math score below 8.0 who were available for programming. All eligible inmates cannot be programmed because of space and staff limitations.
Instead, only 10,881 of the eligible 15,737 inmates (i.e., 69%) received basic academic programming. Thus, of the inmates scoring at less than the 8th grade level, 4, 856 eligible inmates were not enrolled in mandated instructional programs.
Of the 16,888 inmates released for the first time in 1999, 2,435 earned a GED while incarcerated; 4,404 had a diploma or GED prior to entering prison. This means that 10,038 inmates released to the community on parole or upon expiration of sentence in 1999 did not have a high school diploma or GED.
College enrollment is available at only five correctional facilities: Attica, Bedford Hills, Collins, Wyoming, and Sing Sing where the New York Theological Seminary offers a program leading to a Master's degree. In 1999, some 344 inmates (out of a total 71,000 inmate population) completed a college level course. In 1999 only 70 inmates earned a college degree: 41 Associate's, 13 Bachelor's, 16 Master's (all at Sing Sing). Of the 16,888 inmates released for the first time in 1999, 104 had earned a college degree.
Funding for these courses is provided by the college and the inmate. Previously, when funding through Pell Grants and the New York State Tuition Assistance program was available to eligible prisoners, a much higher percentage of prisoners had opportunity for post-secondary study. In 1991, for example, 1078 college degrees were earned by New York State inmates, as compared to 70 in 1999.
The Department of Education and the Department of Correctional Services and in particular, Frank R. Headley, Deputy Commissioner for Program Services, and John K. Hoxie, Director of Education, are to be commended for their dedication and professionalism in ensuring that educational programs are functioning within the facilities. They have been creative in making use of volunteer tutors and inmate program associates to provide assistance to other inmates.
Their jobs must be made difficult, however, by the small teaching and instructional staff, particularly when compared to the more than 30,000 full-time staff positions in DOCS: 90 academic and vocational supervisors, 662 teachers, and 562 vocational instructors, psychologists and counselors, for a total in 1999 of 1,224 positions to serve more than 70,000 inmates at more than 70 facilities. Presumably--because it is very difficult for outsiders to discover the details of the State's budget for correctional services-- this results from a low level of funding for educational activities, a reflection of the legislature's and the governor's priorities rather than those of experts in corrections.
Actions
Senator Montgomery, and members of the Task Force, we urge you to continue to press for reform of the criminal justice system, to make it more effective--indeed, more cost-effective--in preventing crime and restoring convicted persons to the community with a positive attitude and positive skills that will allow them to contribute to the economy and reclaim a wholesome place in family life. In particular, we urge you to support the following action items:
1. Call for accountability with respect to correctional services. Require annual reports to the public in easily understood format on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of correctional programs in preventing recidivism and in promoting employment among ex-offenders.
2. Analyze reports and studies conducted by other states to appreciate the cost-benefits of expanded educational programs. Fund and conduct a similar analysis in New York State. Make the reports available to other legislators and the public.
3. Examine the myriad ways in which new technologies enhance the opportunities for distance learning and individualized instruction for inmates.
4. Determine the need for additional teachers and tutors and provide funding to hire for these positions, with preference to residents of the upstate New York towns in which the prisons are located.
5. Restore funding for post-secondary education through the Tuition Assistance Program for incarcerated persons. Provide financial assistance to inmates to engage in self-directed study, such as the College Level Equivalency Program, and to take CLEP examinations at the correctional facilities. Restore and continue funding the Consortium of the Niagara Frontier programs at Attica, Wyoming and Collins in Western New York.
I thank you for the opportunity to have appeared before you today.