“Prison education is a means of rehabilitating and re-directing. If you release someone with the same skills with which she came in, she’s going to get involved in the same activities as she did before.”
– Marymount Bedford Hills Program student
– Marymount Bedford Hills Program student
- Prison Inmate Work Programs
- Jobs For Inmates Work Programs
- Prison Inmate Work Programs Virginia
- Prison Inmate Work Programs In Florida
- Programs For Inmates
- Inmates Working In Prison
Certain eligible offenders may enter a transitional work program (TWP) from six (6) months to four (4) years prior to release from incarceration, depending on the offense of conviction. By definition, work release programs for inmates are based around transition. The inmates who benefit from these programs are taught to find and keep employment. Learning the skills necessary to locate employment, obtain a job, and keep it, is more complicated that it may seem on the surface. In both correctional industries programs and standard prison work, employees do not have the right to organize or negotiate for better working conditions, and have very limited opportunities to. The Community Work Program - 1,200 inmates working for NC communities. Inmate Labor Statistics - 1995-1999. Correction Enterprises - 2,000 inmates working in N.C. Prison industries. Inmates at Work - road squads, prison farms, prison industries, prison kitchens and more. Where inmates work - inmate work assignments. Photo Scrapbook - images of inmates working in North Carolina.
The Higher the Degree, the Lower the Recidivism Rate
Studies conducted over the last two decades almost unanimously indicate that higher education in prison programs reduces recidivism and translates into reductions in crime, savings to taxpayers, and long-term contributions to the safety and well-being of the communities to which formerly incarcerated people return.
Recent research on prison education programs presents discouraging statistics on the current recidivism rate. The Institute for Higher Education Policy (IHEP) reported in 2011 that nearly 7 in 10 people who are formerly incarcerated will commit a new crime, and half will end up back in prison within three years. Given that about 95 out of every 100 incarcerated people eventually rejoin society,[1] it is crucial that we develop programs and tools to effectively reduce recidivism.
Prison education is far more effective at reducing recidivism than boot camps, “shock” incarceration or vocational training, according to the National Institute of Justice.[2] In 2001, the Correctional Education Association’s “Three State Recidivism Study” quantified this reduction, demonstrating that correctional education lowered long-term recidivism by 29 percent.[3]
A 2005 IHEP report cites yet higher numbers, reporting that recidivism rates for incarcerated people who had participated in prison education programs were on average 46 percent lower than the rates of incarcerated people who had not taken college classes. The same report examined 15 different studies conducted during the 1990s and found that 14 of these showed reduced long-term recidivism rates among people who had participated in postsecondary correctional education.[4]
The vast majority of people in U.S. prisons do not have a high school diploma. A high correlation exists between the level of education attained by an incarcerated person and his or her recidivism rate. The American Correctional Association has reported that in Indiana the recidivism rate for GED completers is 20 percent lower than the general prison population’s rate, and the recidivism rate for college degree completers is 44 percent lower than the general population’s.[5] In other words, the higher the degree earned, the lower the recidivism rate.
Increased Employment, Reduced Recidivism
This inverse relationship between degree level and recidivism rate is not surprising. According to a 2009 report from the Correctional Association of New York, a college education has become one of the most valuable assets in the United States; a bachelor’s degree is worth more than $1 million in lifetime earnings.[6] Thus the presence (or absence) of a degree has far-reaching implications for the employment opportunities available to formerly incarcerated people reintegrating into society. Gainful employment is one of the defining characteristics of successful reentry, and successful reentry and readjustment into society ultimately lower the likelihood of an individual reverting back to illegal activity.
“College education helps one to get a job and therefore transition more easily to the outside.” – Marymount Bedford Hills Program student
Today, an estimated 2.3 million people are incarcerated in the United States. Taken together, states spend over $52 billion annually on corrections and related activities.[7]
“College education helps one to get a job and therefore transition more easily to the outside.” – Marymount Bedford Hills Program student
Today, an estimated 2.3 million people are incarcerated in the United States. Taken together, states spend over $52 billion annually on corrections and related activities.[7]
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the average annual operating cost per incarcerated person in 2001 was $22, 650.[8] The annual spending per student for a standard state university such as the State University of New York (SUNY) is below $8, 000.[9] In short, there is a significant cost difference between corrections and education spending.
Currently, only approximately 6 percent of corrections spending is being used to pay for all prison programming, including educational programs. A 50-state analysis of postsecondary prison education concludes that “even if educational programs are expanded, their per-prisoner cost is far less than the total cost of incarceration.”[10]
Long-Term Cost-Efficiency: Recidivism’s Cost-Cutting Effects
The high cost of correctional spending is exacerbated by an astonishingly high national recidivism rate of 67.5 percent,[11] which significantly contributes to the increasing prison population. By reducing recidivism, prison education has the far-reaching potential of reducing the entire scale of the prison population and, thus, prison costs.
A study by the Department of Policy Studies at the University of California at Los Angeles found that “a $1 million investment in incarceration will prevent about 350 crimes, while that same investment in [correctional] education will prevent more than 600 crimes. Correctional education is almost twice as cost effective as incarceration.” [12]Post-secondary education also yields multiple public benefits, including greater societal productivity, increased tax revenue and decreased reliance on governmental support.[13] In a 2005 IHEP survey, more people with a high school diploma reported receiving public assistance in every state than did those with a bachelor’s degree, and in 28 states no one with a bachelor’s degree reported receiving public assistance in the prior year.[14] “Prison higher education programs can be a cost-effective investment of taxpayer dollars.”[15]
Violence Reduction
Prison Inmate Work Programs
Directors of prison education programs often report noticeable improvement in general prison conduct and discipline. One director in New York state noted that disciplinary infractions declined among his students during the course of a semester; another described how incarcerated students policed themselves out of fear of permanently losing their prison education program. A 2009 report concludes that “changes in behavior can be attributed to improved cognitive capacity as well as to the incarcerated person having the opportunity to feel human again by engaging in an activity as commonplace as going to classes.”[16]
“It occurred to me that at San Quentin the power of education had actually changed the culture within the prison. This is unheard of anywhere else in the California prison system.” – Chrisfino Kenyatta Leal, 2011 valedictorian of the Prison University Project
Survey results from an Indiana prison in the 1990s showed that incarcerated people who were enrolled in college classes committed 75 percent fewer infractions than incarcerated people who were not enrolled. A more recent study demonstrates that postsecondary correctional education programs can break down the racial barriers that are a common cause of disciplinary problems in the prison setting.[17]
The Correctional Association of New York finds that “the prison officials have often recommended reinstating college programs because of their multiple benign effects: providing an incentive for good behavior; producing mature, well-spoken leaders who have a calming influence on other [incarcerated people] and on correction officers; and communicating the message that society has sufficient respect for the human potential of incarcerated people.” [18]
Positive Effects on Children Whose Parents Are Incarcerated
“I believe education can mean the difference between a life of crime and a productive life. My educational level can influence whether my twin sons aspire to be criminals or whether they have the self confidence to pursue occupations that challenge their minds.” – Gregory Brown, Hudson Link student
The number of children affected by their parents’ incarceration is significant: In the first decade of the twenty-first century, more than half of all people behind bars had minor children at the time of their incarceration. Most incarcerated parents had lived with their children prior to incarceration and expected to be reunited with them upon release. A college education has far-reaching capacity to set a good example for these children. A study of the Bedford Hills College Program found that children of the women enrolled in the prison college program expressed pride in their mothers’ academic achievements, were inspired to take their own education more seriously and were more motivated to attend college themselves.[19]
Moreover, many studies demonstrate that postsecondary prison education programs offer a chance to break the intergenerational cycle of inequality. When children are inspired by their parents to take education more seriously, they too begin to see viable alternatives to dropping out of school and entering a life of crime, thus breaking a harrowing cycle of intergenerational incarceration.
“The more opportunities we in prison have to learn to value education and see possibilities for ourselves, the greater the chance we will break the cycle of incarceration not just for ourselves but for future generations to come.” – Chrisfino Kenyatta Leal, 2011 valedictorian of the Prison University Project
[1] Laura E. Gorgol and Brian A. Sponsler, “Unlocking Potential: Results of a National Survey of Postsecondary Education in State Prisons,” Institute for Higher Education Policy, 2011
[2] Lawrence W. Sherman et. Album software free download. al, “Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn’t, What’s Promising,” National Institute of Justice, 1998
[3] Stephen Steurer, Linda Smith, and Alice Tracy, “Three State Recidivism Study,” Correctional Education Association, 2001
[4] Wendy Erisman and Jeanne Bayer Contardo, “Learning to Reduce Recidivism: A 50-State Analysis of Postsecondary Correctional Education Policy,” Institute for Higher Education Policy, 2005
[5] Stephen Steurer, John Linton, John Nally, and Susan Lockwood, “The Top-Nine Reasons to Increase Correctional Education Programs,”Corrections Today, 2010.
[6] Correctional Association of New York, “Education from the Inside Out: The Multiple Benefits of College Programs in Prison,” 2009.
[7] Laura E. Gorgol and Brian A. Sponsler, “Unlocking Potential: Results of a National Survey of Postsecondary Education in State Prisons,” Institute for Higher Education Policy, 2011.
[8] James J. Stephen, “State Prison Expenditures 2001.” Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2001.
[9] Correctional Association of New York, “Education from the Inside Out: The Multiple Benefits of College Programs in Prison,” 2009.
[10] Wendy Erisman and Jeanne Bayer Contardo, “Learning to Reduce Recidivism: A 50-State Analysis of Postsecondary Correctional Education Policy,” Institute for Higher Education Policy, 2005.
[11] Bureau of Justice Statistics, “Reentry Trends in the U.S.,” Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1994.
[12] A. Bazos and J. Hausman, “Correctional Education as a Crime Control Program,” Los Angeles: UCLA School of Public Policy and Social Research, 2004.
[13] Institute for Higher Educatoin Policy, “The Investment Payoff,” Institute for Higher Education Policy, 2005.
[14] Wendy Erisman and Jeanne Bayer Contardo, “Learning to Reduce Recidivism: A 50-State Analysis of Postsecondary Correctional Education Policy,” Institute for Higher Education Policy, 2005.
[16] Correctional Association of New York, “Education from the Inside Out: The Multiple Benefits of College Programs in Prison,” 2009.
[17] Wendy Erisman and Jeanne Bayer Contardo, “Learning to Reduce Recidivism: A 50-State Analysis of Postsecondary Correctional Education Policy,” Institute for Higher Education Policy, 2005.
[18] Correctional Association of New York, “Education from the Inside Out: The Multiple Benefits of College Programs in Prison,” 2009.
[19] Wendy Erisman and Jeanne Bayer Contardo, “Learning to Reduce Recidivism: A 50-State Analysis of Postsecondary Correctional Education Policy,” Institute for Higher Education Policy, 2005
Street Roots
Part II — With a statewide prison population of nearly 15,000 inmates, education programs are few and far between
This is Part II of a two-part report looking inside Oregon's prison workforce. Part Iexplores whether prison jobs exploit inmates or provide them an opportunity. Pro windows pr.
Cars in varying degrees of assembly fill up the automotive shop at Oregon State Penitentiary, from a classic Porsche to a 1965 Volvo. In the back of the shop is a small classroom. Inside, half a dozen men sit around tables, focused on the textbooks sprawled in front of them.
But learning here goes well beyond the textbook. For many of the participants, the biggest lesson is how to work with others. They face challenges every day that require them to work as a team and communicate with one another.
The two-year program is offered through Chemeketa Community College and gives students in-class and hands-on automotive experience. With the completion of general education classes offered through the college, participants of the automotive class can receive their associate degree in automotive technologies upon completion.
With the assistance of the Pell Pilot Program, many participants of the automotive program are now able to take their general education classes free of charge. This includes math and writing classes needed to earn the automotive technologies degree.
The automotive program itself, while not covered by Pell, costs inmates $25 per term. Tucker said the small fee helps the participants feel as though they’re making an investment and makes them more likely to complete the degree.
Bill Gastoni has been teaching the class for the past 14 years. Gastoni is proud of the success stories that have come out of his shop. His program boasts a recidivism rate of 2.5 percent and an average GPA of 3.8 for those who complete the program.
Altogether, the recidivism rate for graduates of Chemeketa’s College Inside is 6 percent, compared with 24.6 percent of inmates in Oregon state prisons who are convicted of a felony within three years of being released.
Inmate Kenneth Taylor, a recent graduate of the program, went right to work in the prison’s auto shop after finishing his curriculum. Some Salem residents pay the prison to have inmates repair their vehicles.
Thanks to the program, Taylor now feels more hopeful about his future and the skills that he has gained.
“It’s a great learning experience if you take advantage of it and utilize the tools we have available here,” he said. “You can get out of this program fully ready to go out into the real world and work on anything. I feel confident in my abilities at this time considering where we started.”
When we spoke with Taylor, he was only a month away from his release date and said he planned on using the skills he learned in the automotive class to pursue an engineering degree.
“Even if we can touch one out of 20 students, that’s still a positive thing,” Gastoni said. “I do my best. I try to keep contact with them on the outside, and if they have trouble, they can give us a call.”
Gerry Lee is partway through the program and credits it for helping turn his life around. He is scheduled to be released in 2019 and hopes to stay in the automotive shop until then.
“I was in a very deep, dark depression, and I just wanted to leave OSP,” Lee said. “And now with this going on, after the two-year program, there is an option to stay in and become a worker, and I would like to be able to do that for another year or more if possible.”
After dropping out of high school at age 16, Lee said he had to get used to the classroom setting again, but now feels more confident about leaving prison and finding a job.
While Taylor and Lee are both dedicated to the program, Gastoni said that’s not the case for everyone. Oftentimes students don’t give it their all or their hearts aren’t in it, Gastoni said.
“Some of them are disappointing. They’re just here because they want to stay at OSP and don’t have anything better to do but don’t have any desire to do this (automotive) afterwards,” Gastoni said. “I put a lot of effort into these guys, and then they fail or don’t care.”
Despite the program’s low recidivism rate, Taylor said that people don’t jump at the opportunity like one might expect.
“A lot of people do not want to put in the work, and they do not want to let go of the constraint put on you out there and the mentality you have to have in order to be out there,” Taylor said.
“It’s prison mentality,” Gastoni said. “You have to want to change yourself, and a lot of these guys just like being the way they are. That’s why they’re here.”
The kind of skills they learn in educational programs such as Gastoni’s are crucial to the success of these individuals once they’re released. There are the communication skills that help them work with others and the problem-solving skills that allow them to face problems head on. But more than anything, Gastoni said, is the process of learning that there are options besides criminal activity.
Jobs For Inmates Work Programs
“Once I get that through to them, then they get on the outside and go, ‘You know what? I can be a better person. I don’t need to go and steal or do crime. I can actually have a job, have an income and make a good living doing this,’” Gastoni said.
The program has a 15-student capacity each year. Despite the praise that the program receives from past students, enrollment has been falling below expectations. The program currently has 12 second- and 10 first-year students. This is due in part to the nature of prison, said Gastoni. Inmates get in fights or have other issues that result in them being removed from the program, or are ineligible for it to begin with.
Chemeketa also offers a Computer Assisted Drafting program at Santiam Correctional Institute, with the option of obtaining an associate degree.
Prison Inmate Work Programs Virginia
One of the most effective ways to prepare inmates for the outside is through education, according to a 2014 study conducted by the RAND Corporation. The study, which examined the effects of prison education programs, concluded that inmates were 13 percent more likely to get a job after being released if they had participated in some form of correctional education.
The study also concluded that inmates who participated in educational programs were 43 percent less likely to experience reoffend within three years than those who didn’t participate.
RELATED:How do we measure recidivism?
Education assessment is one step in the initial intake process for all inmates. As of 2014, of those who entered prison without a high school diploma or equivalent, 67.1 percent were released having earned a GED.
However, with a statewide prison population of nearly 15,000 inmates, education programs are few and far between. GED and adult basic education programs are standard fare at all 14 of Oregon’s correctional facilities. Beyond that, however, inmates are left with few options. Coffee Creek Correctional Facility, the state’s only women’s prison, offers the widest range of courses, including a hair salon and a barista training program. But at other facilities, there isn’t much available to provide inmates with an education that can help them succeed outside of prison.
One of the biggest roadblocks to expanding education programs, as with many state-run programs, is adequate funding. It already costs Oregon $34,510 to house an inmate for a year, before adding in the cost of college education programs inside.
Prior to 1994, many prisoners nationwide were eligible to receive Pell Grants to enroll in discounted college education programs while incarcerated. That changed when President Bill Clinton introduced the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, which included a provision that barred anyone from receiving educational grants while in a penal institution.
The Obama administration has taken steps in the past few months to reinstate Pell Grants as an option for inmates. The Second Chance Pell Pilot Program, which began in July, brings together colleges and prisons across the country to provide degree and certificate programs.
According to the official notice from the U.S. Department of Education, the pilot program requires that participating institutions “only enroll students in postsecondary education and training programs that prepare them for high-demand occupations.” They must also be legally able to enter into said occupations or obtain any licenses or certifications despite their status as an ex-convict.
The U.S. Department of Education estimates in the 2016-17 school year approximately 186 inmates at three Oregon correctional facilities will be eligible for these Pell Grants through Chemeketa Community College. Oregon State Penitentiary, Oregon State Correctional Institution and Santiam Correctional Institution are the only prisons in Oregon that offer the program.
In order to qualify for a Pell Grant, inmates must have one full year without any reported violent behavior or prison rule violation. At Chemeketa, the focus is on those who are within five years of being released.
Some opponents of the program say it takes away from deserving students that aren’t incarcerated. Pell’s 2016 budget is more than $32 billion, and the Department of Education estimates that the funds needed for inmate Pell grants make up less than 0.1 percent of the entire budget.
On the issue of money, Jonathan Tucker, Oregon Department of Corrections’ Salem-area education manager, refers back to the RAND study, which concluded that for every dollar spent on corrections education, taxpayers save $4 to $5.
Tucker currently manages the education programs offered through Chemeketa Community College at Oregon State Penitentiary, Oregon State Correctional Institute and Santiam Correctional Institute.
Prison Inmate Work Programs In Florida
One of the biggest struggles has been finding adequate resources, Tucker said. While Chemeketa’s College Inside program is offered at three correctional facilities across Salem, all program organizing is done by a single person.
“Pell is so great and it’s important symbolically, but really, until we put some money towards the actual department funding so we can have some part-time staff to come in and help, it actually makes it tougher,” Tucker said.
If this pilot program runs successfully, Tucker hopes other institutions, both correctional and educational, will see the success of College Inside.
“We want to make sure by the end of this pilot that we’re able to say we took in 71 Pell-eligible students, 71 graduated with degrees, and 69 of those 71 have not yet returned to prison,” Tucker said.
Tucker and Gastoni are starting the new year with cautious optimism. With President-elect Donald Trump soon to be sworn into office, the future of the Pell Pilot Program is unclear.
Programs For Inmates
“We’re silently nervous and hopeful at the same time,” Tucker said.
Inmates Working In Prison
Email reporter Corinne Ellis at [email protected]
INSIDE OREGON'S PRISON WORKFORCE, PART I: Exploitation or opportunity?