By Jean Trounstine – Boston Daily Critics have long said that college classes behind bars coddle criminals. But here’s a no-brainer: Would you prefer living next door to a released prisoner who is or is not college-educated? Research shows that the more education a person has, the less likely that person is to return to
In a recent letter from Brigham Young University (BYU), university officials acknowledged that they have ceased all paper-based correspondence courses. This is a blow to incarcerated students country-wide considering that BYU, while never offering a degree program to incarcerated students, did offer a significant number of high-quality paper-based courses which those in prison could complete. These included high school, college, and personal development courses. I, for one, am sorry to see them go as I have even recommended BYU in my book, Education Behind Bars: A Win-Win Strategy for Maximum Security. This is a most unfortunate development.
The BYU letter reads, in part, as follows: “Thank you for your interest in our BYU Independent Study program. Due to changes and upgrades to our course delivery system, we are no longer offering university courses in a paper format. Students enrolling in our university courses must have access to a computer and the internet. . . If your institution supports having internet access . . . [y]ou may enroll with the enclosed enrollment form via mail, online, or over the phone. . . We do not offer any degrees or certificate programs through Independent Study to students who have not already completed 30 credits on BYU campus. We do offer courses that can be transferred to other Universities with approval from that University. . . We hope that your educational goals will be realized and commend you for your desire to grow academically. If you have further questions, please let me know as I am happy to answer them.”
By George Hook
Currently, 26 State prison systems have prison education programs, much of it very limited, and 24 States have none at all, essentially an even split. The “haves” are Alabama, California, Connecticut, Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New York, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and Washington. That’s 25. Not included is Georgia, number 26 in that list, because it provides education for women only, and that education is confined to religious preparation only. The “have-nots” are Alaska, Arkansas, Arizona, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
What impact does the absence of prison educational programming have on recidivism rates? No one can know for sure because each prisoner may be impacted differently based upon individual characteristics and circumstances. Anecdotally, the results are probably better than inconsequential, and, presumably, never bad. But anecdote is merely a sampling of some prisoners’ individual assessments, and probably not mathematical or scientific enough to be credited by academia, or even legislatures, for that matter, as the appropriate basis for continuing support.
By George Hook
A near universal belief is that education is an essential ingredient to minimizing recidivism. Equally universal is the belief that federal and State prison education programs are too generally unavailable. Some might state that Uncle Sam and the States are “criminally negligent” on this score. Others might even delete “negligent” and assert that the “criminality” is specific, targeted and intentional. Those making such assertions would not just be suffering prisoners, who might expect misunderstanding, at least, and even targeting. Educators and administrators may be numbered among the jury as well. Primarily, the educators and administrators are the ones more vocal, among them sociologists and criminologists, who do the statistical and other research, the most distressed and making the clarion call to reform.
Prison education is expensive. Although the students and facilities are readily available, the teachers’ availability and access to them is quite problematic. Usually, teachers have had to stand up before their students and lecture. That means having teachers enter the prison facility. Many, if not most, teachers from traditional backgrounds would be very wary about teaching in any prison environment or to persons regarded to be potentially, if not patently, dangerous, generally, if not so specifically, by the teachers individually. Transporting groups of prisoners beyond the prison walls is substantially more bothersome, and, potentially more risky and dangerous. Admitting teachers to prison and transporting prisoners to outside classrooms, both, have usually been substantially more expensive than the general public, as represented by their political voices in government, could tolerate. So the more acceptable alternative has been the correspondence course curriculum.
By George Hook
Where a prisoner “does time” may be critical to fulfilling educational aspirations, as distinguished from satisfying his or her educational needs. That is because aspiration is the province of the individual, whereas need is the province of the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”), based on statute and regulation. All BOP institutions are supposed to have the basics–General Educational Development (“GED”), English as a Second Language (“ESL”)–because these are mandated for all prisoners in need of them based on federal statute and BOP regulations which are promulgated pursuant to those statutory mandates, as well as the less well defined Adult Continuing Education (“ACE”), library services, and parenting programs based on BOP regulation; but not the Full Educational Program (“FEP”), consisting of educational and occupational programs, which, even where mandated, are variable as to content with each institution.
To which prison a prisoner goes is determined initially by the BOP; but the prisoner has some limited ability to influence that determination. To which prison a prisoner goes thereafter is determined by request of the prisoner. This provides more opportunity for the prisoner to influence the transfer destination, if not exactly dictate it.
By Richard Foster
Ninety-five percent of American prisoners will be released back into society, based on information from the Bureau of Justice Statistics. One of the most important goals of the criminal justice system is to reduce the likelihood they will recidivate upon release. Research shows that completion of a GED during incarceration reduces the rate of recidivism by approximately five percent. The Bureau also reports that, “As of June 30, 2009, state and federal correctional authorities had jurisdiction over 1,617,478 prisoners.” Five percent would therefore be equivalent to around 80,000 fewer returnees.
According to the U. S. Department of Justice: FY 2011 Budget Request, “As a result of successful law enforcement policies, the number of criminal suspects appearing in federal court continues to grow, as does the number of individuals ordered detained and ultimately incarcerated.” It goes on to explain that the number of FY 2010 prisoners was 215,000 which is expected to rise approximately 3.2% in FY 2011, up 7,000 to 222,000 inmates.
The notion that an increase in the inmate population represents success could be viewed differently. These 7,000 suspects, detainees, and convicts are representative of two categories of offenders. Some are new to the federal system, yet many are returning after previous incarceration. Whether due for parole violations or due to new charges being filed, recidivism rates account for an unnecessarily large proportion of those within our prison system. The Pew Center on the States’ report, State of Recidivism: The Revolving Door of America’s Prisons, April 13, 2011, reports that based on the data received by 41 states on prisoners released in 2004, after three years, the normal time period for these studies, there was a recidivism rate of 43.3%. This represents almost half the inmates released. It is no wonder that the U.S. has the largest percentage of its population incarcerated, as many of those who recidivate end up back in prison. Again, according to the Pew study, “…, incarceration levels had risen to a point where one in 100 American adults was behind bars. A second Pew study the following year added another disturbing dimension to the picture, revealing that one in 31 adults in the United States was either incarcerated or on probation or parole.”
By George Hook
As stated in PRISON EDUCATUION BASICS 101, Congress has legislated that the Bureau of Prisons provide for the instruction of all persons charged with or convicted of offenses against the United States, that pursuant to this mandate, the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) has provided that all its institutions must provide General Educational Development (“GED”), English as a Second Language (“ESL”), adult continuing education (“ACE”), library services, parenting, and recreational programs, and that additionally, all institutions except satellite prison camps, detention centers, and metropolitan correctional centers are to have a Full Educational Program (“FEP”).
Pursuant to that Congressional mandate, the BOP also provides occupational educational courses for all prisoners with vocational training needs at its correctional institutions, As with FEP, metropolitan correctional centers, detention centers, the federal transportation center, and administrative maximum facility are exclude from this requirement to have occupational education programs (“OEP”).
The OEP’s stated purpose is to teach specific, contemporary job skills that will permit gainful post-release employment. Skill accreditation and completion certification are an integral part of each institution’s OEP. Also, where feasible, each correctional institution’s OEP is to interface with UNICOR industries so that prisoners will have the potential for actual employment using the skill set that has been acquired.
A reader of my text, Education Behind Bars: A Win-Win Strategy for Maximum Security, recently notified me that the College-Level Examination Program (CLEP) has ceased offering its paper-based examination option. This means that CLEP testing is now technologically unavailable to virtually all incarcerated students since most of these students lack access to internet-connected computers or
By George Hook
Congress has legislated that the Bureau of Prisons, under the direction of the Attorney General, provide for the instruction of all persons charged with or convicted of offenses against the United States, to include establishing prerelease planning procedures that help prisoners apply for Federal and State benefits upon release and reentry planning procedures that include providing Federal prisoners with information in health and nutrition, employment, literacy and education, personal finance and consumer skills, community resources, personal growth and development, and release requirements and procedures.
Pursuant to this mandate, the Bureau of Prisons has provided that all its institutions must provide General Educational Development (“GED”), English as a Second Language (“ESL”), adult continuing education (“ACE”), library services, parenting, and recreational programs. Additionally, all institutions except satellite prison camps, detention centers, and metropolitan correctional centers are mandated to have a Full Educational Program (“FEP”).
A satellite prison camp is a minimum security camp adjacent to, and servicing, a larger federal institution. It may also provide Inmate workers for other off-site locations. Currently, satellite camps are adjacent to 63 institutions, being: Aliceville, Ashland, Atlanta, Atwater, Bastrop, Beaumont, Beckley, Bennettsville, Berlin, Big Sandy, Big Spring, Butner, Canaan, Carswell, Coleman Cumberland, Danbury, Devens, Dublin, Edgefield, El Reno, Englewood, Estill, Fairton, Florence, Forrest City, Fort Dix, Gilmer, Greenville, Hazelton, Herlong, Jesup, La Tuna, Leavenworth, Lee, Lewisburg, Lexington, Lompoc, Loretto, Manchester, Marianna, Marion, McCreary, McDowell, McKean, Mendota, Miami, Oakdale, Otisville, Oxford, Pekin, Petersburg, Phoenix, Pollock, Schuylkill, Seagoville, Sheridan, Talladega, Terre Haute, Texarkana, Three Rivers, Tucson, Victorville, Williamsburg, and Yazoo.
By Alan Prendergast
The prisoners report to the officer at the desk, then head into a room awash in sunlight in the visitation area of the Limon Correctional Facility. They murmur soft greetings to each other, squint into the brightness streaming through the windows, quickly choose their seats. For men without prospects, they seem oddly expectant.
And why not? On this day they have been granted a reprieve from an endless routine of tedium and tension. For the next two hours, at least, they are somewhere else. Not in their cells at a high-security prison – although the cells are never far away -but in books.
Today’s book is Of Mice and Men, by John Steinbeck, the story of Lennie and George, two guys knocked about by the Great Depression, scraping by on migrant work and dreaming about having their own farm. Less than 30,000 words but packed with disturbing scenes of abuse, social injustice and murder, the 1937 novel is a staple of middle- and high-school English classes — yet still considered sufficiently offensive and even dangerous in some quarters to make librarians’ lists of the most challenged books of all time.