The Effects of Correctional Education on Recidivism- a Review of LiteratureEssay Preview: The Effects of Correctional Education on Recidivism- a Review of LiteratureReport this essayAmerica, one of the greatest industrialized countries, home to some of the wealthiest people in the world, has a growing problem of illiteracy among its citizenry. An even greater problem is the high rate of illiteracy among those imprisoned. America has more than two million people behind bars. This is more than any other country in the world, and more than three times as any country in Europe. These mostly illiterate dropouts and society rejects are like a cancer eating at the democratic core and economic substance of the nation (A. Newman 1993). Prison illiteracy is a problem that most educators are unaware of, most politicians refuse to acknowledge, most prison administrators are insufficiently trained to handle, and most taxpayers refuse to pay for.
A strong correlation exists between educational inadequacy and criminal behavior. Add to this mix other factors that contribute to educational disability, such as, marginalized factors of ethnicity, class, socioeconomic deprivations, and other uncontrollable disabilities, you have the formula for prison illiteracy (A. Newman 1993). Since there is a clear linkage between illiteracy and criminal tendency, it stands to reason that increased literacy would have a diminishing effect on criminality. A model literacy program focused on equipping inmates with the mental abilities to not only function, but to also contribute to society is needed in order to combat the high incarceration and recidivism rates.
In a society and economy that is ever more dependent on education not just for citizenship but for productivity, a life of expanded education and skills is increasingly needed. This growing demand for education has left a large percentage of the population disenfranchised. A large number of inmates incarcerated in state and prison systems function at below level literacy rates which makes it extremely difficult for them to meet the demands of society upon their release. The United States has a history of vacillating between rehabilitation and punishment for prisoners. The current mood is to devote resources to building more prisons and to strengthen law enforcement and sentencing policies. In order to reduce crime and to encourage criminals to give up crime as a lifestyle, the notion of prison rehabilitation requires rethinking. The correctional system has not been successful in its mission of reforming or creating a rehabilitative mind state in prisoners. In its current state, the system releases prisoners on probation to return to mainstream society ill equipped with the necessary survival tools to become positive contributors to that same society.
The recidivism rate for correctional institutions is exceptionally high, institutions whose main purpose is to deter criminal behavior through incarceration. Evident by the increasing construction rate of prisons, incarceration alone is not the answer. To get a maximized return on tax payers monies, a greater effort must be made to mainstream released prisoners back into society.
Nearly one in every 100 adults in America is currently incarcerated in jail or prison. In 2004, the results of a survey done in by the PEW Center on the States in collaboration with the Association of State Correctional Administrator (ASCA) showed that 43.3 percent of those prisoners released were reincarcerated within three years (The PEW Center on the States 2011). This high rate of recidivism and overall prison incarceration have caused federal and state annual spending on corrections to increase by more than 305 percent in the past two decades, a total of about 52 billion dollars (Brazzell, et al. 2009).
Research shows that individuals who are released from jail or other prison institutions are confronted with many challenges as they struggle to reconnect with their family and community. The difficulty that they have in becoming productive members of society often leads to repeat criminal activity (Brazzell, et al. 2009). The formulation of effective strategies to integrate the thousands of men and women released from prison or jail back into mainstream society is essential not only for them but for the health and well-being of the community at large. Confronting the problem of recidivism will allow both federal and state governments to reallocate the billions of dollars used to maintain, operate, and build prisons to some other areas of need (G. Gaes 2008). Policymakers need to recognize the importance of addressing recidivism to accomplishing better results for the correctional system.
While there has been considerable attention given to the necessity of providing workforce development, health, and housing to released inmates, very little attention has been paid to the role that in-prison and post-prison education plays in helping to totally rehabilitate and assimilate newly released prisoners (Brazzell, et al. 2009). Without education offenders are more likely to repeat the steps that led them to incarceration in the beginning. Education has been the vehicle for economic mobility and assimilation for immigrants and other disadvantaged groups of throughout the history of the United States. For people who have been involved in the criminal justice system, education is the only viable path job attainment, lower rates of recidivisms, and an overall improved society (G. Gaes 2008).
A barrier to inmates obtaining higher paying jobs once released is the accessibility to high-quality education. Many jobs in the U.S. require postsecondary training and/or college education. Adults released from prison or jails are overwhelmingly undereducated in comparison to the general population (Brazzell, et al. 2009). This under education and low literacy skills make it difficult to handle everyday tasks required to function in social arenas and the labor force (G. Gaes 2008). Inmates that earned a college degree returned to prison custody at a significantly lower rate (26.4%) that those inmates who did not earn a degree (44.6%) (Boudin 1993).
Based on research on the causes of recidivism, consideration of barriers and experience, the most promising approach for effecting change in this area maybe to enact policy that provides the opportunity for a high-quality secondary and post-secondary education on a rigorously and consistent basis at all correctional institutions. The Justices Department Office of Correctional Education issued a Facts and Commentary in 1995 entitled “Pell Grants for Prisoners,” in which it stated that “Pell grants help inmates obtain the skills and education needed to acquire and keep a job following their eventual release. Despite the position of policy experts within the federal and state government, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act effectively dismantled correctional higher education (Karpowitz and Kenner 1999). Reconsidering this act may provide the necessary ammo to defeating the increasing
of the federal incarceration and criminal justice system that has replaced the most highly-profiled program. The need to combat the growing costs of correctional education and training will take additional work within the U.S. federal correctional system, including as the focus shifts to increasing access to education.
3.4. The Need to Reduce or Reduce Legal Offenders’ Sentences for Criminal Offenses The State Sentencing Commission recommends the incarceration law and the criminal justice system as a means to reduce the number of criminal defendants convicted for specific, serious offenses (Karpowitz and Kenner 1999). We recommend that states in the national incarceration rate-of-2.5% or less, with a few exceptions, continue to provide a legal alternative to a mandatory prison sentence that is higher than the federal statutory minimum of 10 years (Karpowitz and Kenner 1999). The Commission finds that state prisoners who were convicted of serious second-degree felony or lesser criminal offenses, were required to be given a sentence of up to a year less than the minimum and prison terms (Karpowitz and Kenner 1999). There is mounting evidence, however, that federal law does not eliminate criminal offenders, and this would not significantly impact the national prison and criminal justice system (see [1]) as it may eliminate a person’s opportunity for redemption while also reducing any chance that he or she will become a productive member of society. While the Sentencing Commission and other criminal justice officials have addressed significant national problems facing states where mandatory minimum sentences have not gone up to mandatory, not mandatory, levels and incarcerated individuals who are unable to serve their sentences have continued incarceration and are likely not to fully be able to achieve the outcomes proposed by the Commission. In the current national crime rate, the United States prison population still represents 7.7% of the federal population, and as the incarcerated population increases, the federal incarceration rate (10% of the state population or 20% of the state population plus more prisons) will almost certainly increase. It is also possible that a decrease in the federal minimum prison sentence would not affect the incarceration rate by eliminating the need for state incarceration. If states need to reduce the national crime rate, then they should be able to expand the federal prison population by not increasing the number of persons incarcerated and by increasing prison population.
3.5. The Need For National Sentencing Reform Organizations There are also national and state efforts to decrease the number of federal criminal offenders sentenced for serious crimes (e.g., homicide, murder, rape, kidnapping and sexual assault); however, no research or consensus emerges on how to reform the sentencing system. Research on the state and local approaches to reform is lacking, particularly with respect to the use of federal correctional funds for the promotion the best practices of justice that the U.S. government will strive to foster through the federal court system. We need to recognize that, despite decades of experience, federal prison and probation system policies and practices have resulted in the incarceration rate of high-risk inmates in the United States of America rising by over 40% or more since 1994-1995. The recent prison admissions of high-risk offenders that have been attributed to federal or state offenders has continued, and the incarceration rate of inmates in prison has continued to climb at an accelerating rate. There are numerous mechanisms that can significantly reduce federal and state criminal justice costs through the use of private sector and state programs. These include the use of state and private sector correctional and detention facilities; public and private investment; the use of state investment to support local educational programs; and an innovative approach to using public and private sector investment to create better jobs and increase opportunity in prison. In doing so, the use of private sector or private sector partnerships is an important step toward