Lower education rates will raise recidivism rates because many prisoners who lack education and re-enter

society will not be selfsufficient as education provides the basis for employment.
Heather Ongley Lorena Quintero Amanda Winter Darren Robinson CJA/334 Philip Russo September 17, 2012

Introduction Before understanding the research to be conducted, one must understand the who, what, when, and why of the issue. Many people know and understand that with a better education they will have a better chance in succeeding in the business world. Getting a good paying job without an education is very difficult to do. Those in prison have it even harder, not only do they lack the necessary education; they also have a criminal record as well. However, by providing them a better education while they are in prison can provide them with a better chance at finding a job. The recidivism rates come into play when looking into providing an education to prisoners. Recidivism rates are the rates that refers to the relative number of prisoners who, after being released, return to prison or jail because they have committed another crime (USlegal.com, 2001-2012). The whole point of conducting this study is to determine if first the prisoners are willing to be educated and second if the education provided will help lower the recidivism rates. Some questions to ask during this research could include; Why the prisoner committed the crime? Where they lacking for money? Did they just do the crime because they wanted to or because they had no choice? What kind of child of child hood they had? Were they poor?

 Did they lack for food or clothing? Did they grow up in a criminal environment? What are the chances that if they got an education, they would return to the criminal lifestyle? What kind of education is offered to prisoners during their stay? Are education classes offered to all inmates? If not, who qualifies to enroll in classes Rate the importance of inmates receiving education for rehabilitation from 1-10. Do you feel that prisons that dont offer education for inmates should be held responsible for high recidivism rates? Do you feel that college education would be more beneficial than G.E.D. classes In regards to lowering recidivism rates?

Without education, it is likely that ex-convicts will end back in prison and most of them do just that. According to the BOJ (Bureau of Justice), 65.7% of the 272,111 prisoners who were released in 15 different states in 1994 ended up back in prison within three years, convicted of a felony or serious misdemeanor. In these present times, the number is getting higher. This study is important because society believes that ex-convicts need to turn their lives around by finding work and doing right by society. It is critical to understand that if prisoners do not have a chance to receive education; it will raise the chances of them going back into prison because jobs will not be willing to hire someone who lacks general knowledge. This research will help gather true statistics and findings on why lower education rates raise recidivism levels for prisoners so that prison officials can apply the research and come up with reasonable solutions that will reduce recidivism rates.

Among the issues that arise from the problem of lower education could include crime, violence, and overpopulated prisons. With recidivism comes crime and violence. Prisoners who do not have education will rely on the things they are comfortable and familiar with. This will result in innocent people potentially getting hurt or even killed. Rationale The research questions are perfect for the issue regarding the applied research. With lower education rates raising recidivism levels, we have to get with prison officials, including wardens, etc. to figure out what are being done and what can be done to get prisoners education so that they effectively can lower recidivism rates. They all also answer what is not being done and why education is not being given whether the reason is reasonable or not. According to Bureau of Justice Statistics (2012), Recidivism is measured by criminal acts that resulted in the rearrests, reconviction, or return to prison with or without a new sentence during a three-year period following the prisoner's release (Recidivism, par. 1). If the hypothesis is confirmed the theory will suggest that the lower the education level of an individual, the more apt that individual is to having a hard time finding work. If an individual, who has been to prison or jail, gets released into society with a low education level they will have a hard time finding a job. If this individual cannot find a job they will most likely turn to crime to get money to support themselves or their families, thus proving that the lower the education rate the higher the recidivism rate is. If the hypothesis is not confirmed it will suggest that there is no connection between education levels and recidivism rates back into jail or prison. If not proved the hypothesis will also show that individuals released back into society turn back to crime for other reasons and not

anything to do with their education levels, thus proving that education levels have no effect on recidivism rates. Background/Literature review Recidivism is the result of a former prisoner relapsing into criminal activity and returning to prison for a new offense. It is estimated that approximately two-thirds of inmates released from prison will be convicted for another offense and return to prison within three years. Rates of recidivism vary according to the types of crimes committed. According to McKean & Ransford, (2004)A Justice Department study of 15 states found that prisoners released in 1994 had been charged by 1997 with the following crimes: 2,900 homicides; 2,400 kidnappings; 2,400 rapes; 3,200 other sexual assaults; 21,200 robberies; 54,600 assaults; 13,900 other violent crimes; and over 200,000 car thefts, burglaries, and drugs and weapons offenses. Many other crimes committed by released inmates are unreported or do not result in an arrest (pg. 8, par. 4). There are many reasons recidivism occurs once an inmate has completed his prison term. Substance abuse is one of them. Many prisoners who re-enter society encounter hardships, such as lack of employment or a place to live. Therefore, returning to substance abuse becomes an escape to the hardship they have to endure. In many states, there lacks case management and parole supervision. This lack of supervision enables the prisoner to return to the only life he knows, substance abuse. Court ordered drug treatments account for approximately 31% reduction in recidivism (McKean & Ransford, 2004). Regardless of the issue of substance abuse, many of these inmates have no prior education. Therefore, the lack of education also leads to substance abuse. They either do it to pass time or to be able to somehow function.

Recent studies show lack of employment also produces anxiety and can result in higher recidivism rates. When a prisoner does not have a job once he re-enters society, he will not be self-sufficient. He will not be able to care for his family financially. Therefore, his only other alternative will be to return to a life of crime. It is very difficult for a prisoner to find a job once he has served time in prison. Society does not view that prisoner as a trustworthy person. Therefore, he will be overlooked for the job. Lack of education for many prisoners means lack of employment. When re-entering society after spending time in prison, many prisoners concerns are how are they going to survive? How are they going to take care of their families? Therefore, education is a major component in how recidivism rates are affected. If the prisoner has no prior education, and has a criminal background, his chances of getting a job are less (Florida Department of Corrections, 2001). Lack of education is just as an important reason for high recidivism rates as lack of employment and substance abuse. Many inmates lack basic education. For this reason, it is important to view education as a major component in high recidivism rates. There have been many studies conducted on this subject. However, there are many inconsistencies in trying to figure out how education affects recidivism. In 2008, over 33% of inmates in state prisons did not have a high school diploma. According to Steuter, S., et al., in the Three State Recidivism Study, the Correctional Education Association concluded that inmates from Maryland, Minnesota, and Ohio had a lower recidivism rate because those inmates participated in educational programs while in prison. The recidivism rate was 29% lower than those inmates who did not participate. According to Brewster D., the University of Oklahoma found that inmates who completed their GED were linked to lower recidivism (Iowa Policy Research Organization, 2011).

There is ample information that encourages the importance of education and lowering recidivism rates in prisons. However, there are issues not covered during some studies. How can the prisons afford to provide education programs for every inmate when many prisons are struggling financially? Where would the funding come from to provide education programs in prisons and monitoring after being released? If educational programs increase prison costs, what can the prisons do to alleviate the expense? Methodology To test the hypothesis of whether or not education levels affect recidivism rates, research has been conducted using the classical experiment design. In this study two randomly selected yet similar groups were examined against each other, two prisons of the same background and characteristics were chosen. One prison is chosen as the control group and one prison is chosen as the experimental group. The control group was picked randomly yet it must be similar to the experimental group prison in size, physical set-up of grounds, offender status, and beginning recidivism rates. There should not be any circumstances in either group that would affect recidivism rates except for the treatment of the experimental group. The experimental group prison must also be of the same size, have the same offenders statuses, and have the general beginning recidivism rate as the other group, the control group. The prisons chosen as either group must be prisons that do not offer any type of educational classes, neither GED classes nor college courses. The experimental group prison is then outfitted to offer educational classes such as GED classes and college courses to help increase the individuals education level. Before any of this happens, pre-tests and post-tests,

given as simple questionnaires within an interview, are given before and after treatment to both groups to gage recidivism rates regarding the current education levels of the inmates. This type of research design will pinpoint specifically if giving educational classes to inmates, which will increase their education levels, will help to lower recidivism rates once they are released because they will be easier employable with a higher education level. Any individuals who are trying to beat the system, who are only taking the educational classes to get out of jail early, and who are not taking the research seriously by trying to improve their lives would be excluded as a participant. Research Design To properly test a research design one must use manipulations or variations to test the hypothesis. In this research design the manipulations used would be to offer only GED classes or lower level high school classes. Doing so would help prove that no matter what type of increase in education that inmates receive they will be more likely to get and hold a job after being released, thus lower recidivism rates. To confirm the hypothesis with the data findings from the research the significance would be getting each one of the inmates in the experimental prison to get GEDs or high school diplomas. The significant difference that must be found is that within 6 months to one or two years after release, using post-testing, the inmates who had gotten more education would have gotten jobs and held them, thus keeping them out of prison. According to Florida Department of Corrections (2001) On average an inmates probability of reoffending drops by 2.9% for each higher grade of basic education that was tested (Recidivism Rates by Education Level Tested).

To prove or disprove the hypothesis such dramatic results would have to show that recidivism rates have significantly lowered for those individuals who participated in the educational classes. Results such as those from a recent study would be proof enough of the hypothesis. According to CSG Justice Center (n.d.), Results from the largest correctional education and recidivism study show lower rates of recidivism among inmates who participated in these programs. In this study of over 3,000 prisoners, re-incarceration was 29 percent lower among education program participants (Part II: Review of the Re-Entry Process, par. 3). Also within this study recidivism rates of those individuals who participated in educational classes while incarcerated were found to be 20 to 60 percent lower than those individuals who did not participate. In every research study there are factors that would need to be controlled which include the amount of participants, the amount of education each participant would receive, and the efforts of the individuals to get a job once released. To control these issues each individual would receive at least one grade level of education higher than what they came into the prison with. Another control factor would include keeping the amount of participants as high as possible for a better selective result. Finally making sure each released individual would apply for jobs and hold them if received. Timeline o Development of hypothesis (week 1-3) o Development of instruments to measure research (week 3-6) o Select sample prisons (Week 7-10) o Train interviewers (Week 11-13)

o Select random participants (weeks 14-16) o Conduct pre-tests on both groups (weeks 16-17) o Conduct treatment on experimental group (weeks 18-29) o Conduct post-tests on both groups (after release at 1month, 6 months, 1 year) o Compile results and code if necessary (6months-1year) o Analyze data results (1year1month-1year 4months) o Prepare research report (1year4months-1year6months) o Submit final report with one last post-test at 2 years (2years) Budget

The budget consists of a total of $100,000.00 to do the study discussed. The majority of the funds would go towards the four researchers expenses (to include salaries) involved in this study. The money would cover planning, coordinating, and supervision of data analysis (throughout the two years of the study). This will include coding and analyzing the data generated from the interviews; research support; and resources to conduct the interviews (materials and office supplies). The money would also cover all the essential expenses related to the time-consuming activities of conducting the interviews and questionnaires of the inmates (this includes travel expenses). Travel expenses will cover the two trips to the participating prisons by two of the researchers (including airfare, lodging, and car rental, gas and meal reimbursement).

Budget Personnel Salaries Researcher 1

Year 1

Year 2

$15,000

$ 5,000

Researcher 2 Researcher 3 Researcher 4 Subtotal $20,000 Materials & Supplies Total - expenses Travel for two researchers Total travel costs GRAND TOTAL: $100,000

$15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $60,000 $ 6,000 $ 6,000 $10,000 $10,000

$ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000

$ 4,000 $ 4,000

Procedure During the collection of data for this study, two prison wardens were contacted and asked if they would be willing to participate in the study. The prisons would be visited within a three-week period. During this time, the pre-test (questionnaires and interviews) would be conducted according to the rules and regulations of each prison. In the first prison where the control group was present, they were asked to complete the questionnaires and answer questions based on the individual interviews with the researcher. Based on the responses to the questionnaires and interviews, which would confirm the type of educational background, the control group would be chosen. The second prison with the experimental group was visited. However, the prison warden did not allow any interviews to take place because this group did not have any prior education. Therefore, the warden provided a list of prisoners that would be

participating in the study based on the requirements provided by the researcher. Analysis and Presentation of Findings Proving the predictive validity of the results will show the accuracy of the hypothesis According to Hendricks, Hendricks & Kaufman, in a study conducted, five groups of offenders were used. In one of the groups, 175 offenders received their GED while incarcerated, while there were 175 offenders who did not receive their GED while incarcerated. The second group had 100 Adult Basic Education students who received their GED while incarcerated, and 100 Adult Basic Education students who did not receive their GED while incarcerated. Within the same group, 100 offenders had achieved an 8.0 reading level score but did not go to school while

incarcerated. The study showed a 22% of the GED group who received a GED recidivated, while 35% of the GED group who did not receive their GED recidivated. In the group with the Adult Basic Education students, 16% of students who received a GED recidivated, while 33% of those students who did not receive a GED recidivated. Finally, 36% of the students who didnt go to school recidivated. (Literacy, criminal activity, and recidivism, p. 6). Assessment tests were issued to the participants of the experimental group to figure out what classes would be most beneficial. During the eight weeks of treatment, data was recorded on how beneficial the classes were to the participants. The participants were given a final examination to reflect the level of learning they achieved. This would provide valuable

information as it would show what the participants learned in hopes that they would have enough basic knowledge to be successful once they completed their sentences. Continuing to monitor prisoners for the first three years of post-incarceration provides valuable data reflecting changes in the lives of the prisoners. A monthly monitoring would be conducted with the prisoner and the department of labor to confirm employment. This would confirm that all participants are continuing to work thus implying they not returned to recidivism. Monthly contact with the participants case worker would also confirm if there was a return to recidivism. Discussions Based on the information gathered, there was a positive outcome to prove the hypothesis. A majority of the participants did well enough in the GED class to pass the class. The

participants had a positive outlook as to their return into the community with a higher form of education than what they previously had. Some participants questioned whether a GED class was enough to help them find a job and reintegrate into society. However, knowing they had

some type of education was rewarding. According to Mallot & Fromader (2010), their study conducted provided data that many of their participants felt that having a criminal record would not be beneficial in post-incarceration when looking for employment. However, their research supported that it is not finding a job, but incarceration that directs former inmates into unsteady jobs with very little wage mobility, stability, or opportunity for advancement (p. 9) Conclusion Funding for educational programs in prison will lower crime rates. Funding focusing specifically on those inmates that want to get a higher education would not only benefit the inmate but society and the correctional system. Funding would allow inmates to have some type of education while serving their prison time depending on the individual need. Available

funding for each inmate would provide valuable educational programs. Once those participants are out of prison, the post-testing would show that within the first three years those participants were able to reintegrate into society by finding employment and resources within the community thus lowering recidivism. Post-incarceration, funding would allow for case workers to

implement resources within the community to include transitional programs and family counseling. Once recidivism is down, the prison systems will have more funding available to implement in other places.

References

Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2012). retrieved from: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=17. Florida Department of Corrections. (2001). Retrieved from http://www.dc.state.fl.us/pub/recidivism/2001/factors.html#Ccedlevel Iowa Policy Research Organization. (2011). Teach me how to study: Education programs and prison recidivism. Retrieved from http://www.uiowa.edu/~ipro/Papers%202011/Prison%20Recidivism.pdf McKean, L. & Ransford, C. (2004, August). Current strategies for reducing recidivism. Retrieved from http://targetarea.org/researchdoc/recidivismfullreport.pdf USlegal.com. (2001-2012). Recidivism Rate Law & Legal Definition. Retrieved from http://definitions.uslegal.com/r/recidivism-rate/

http://prisonstudiesproject.org/why-prison-education-programs/ http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=17#data_collections

Hendricks, C., Hendricks, J.E., & Kauffman, S. Literacy, criminal activity, and recidivism. Retrieved from http://www.americanreadingforum.org/yearbook/yearbooks/01_yearbook/pdf/12_Hendric ks.pdf Malott, M. & Fromader, A. (2010). Male inmate perspective on reducing recidivism rates through post-incarceration resources. Retrieved from http://www.internetjournalofcriminology.com/Malott_Fromander_Reducing_Recidivism Rates_Jan_2010.pdf

References

CSG Justice Center. (n.d.). Retrieved fromhttp://www.reentrypolicy.org/Report/PartII/ChapterII B/PolicyStatement15/ResearchHighlight15-3