ED 142 720_

TITLE

INSTITUTION

DOCUMENT FEMME.'

CB 011 '551

An Overview of Findings' and Recommendations of MajorResearch Studies and National Ccaiissions ConcerningEducation of 01f-enders. Report No.: 81:Education Commissiot of the States, Denver, Colo.;Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (Dept. of

Washington, R.C.Justices,PUB DATE Mar 76NOTE 26p.AVAILABLE FROM Education'

Building,(83.00)-

Cosaission of the States, 822 Lincoln Tower1860 Lincoln Street, Denver, Colorado 80203

EDRS PRICE ME-80.83 8C -S2, 06 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS , Administrative Agencies; *Adults; College

.Cooperation; *Correctional Education; CorrectiveInstitutions; *Delinquents; *EducitionallieedstEduc4tional Prograssp8didational Research; 8igh-P -

School Equivalency frograss;,-Interdgency Cooperation;Litefature Reviews; National Surveys; Post SecondaryEducation; *Prisoners,.

IDENTIFIERS United Stated

ABSTRACT .

After a brief introduction describing thp goa2s andproposed activities of the 3-year Correctional Education Pro)ect(which began in January 1975), 10 studies!, pulled together b/ theproject and,representinccopprehensive research about correctional;,education and systems, are analyzed. (Correctional education isdefined generally as the educational programs and processes aiailablsto adult and juvenile offenders after adjudicutidn. The term is also.used to ref& to institution-bleed education of inset's.) Two kindsof-studies are included: *The work of five national commissions thatlooked-at a variety of critical issues in correctlons, incledintcorrectional education; and five published naticiAl studies thatspecifically address issues in eithef adult or juvenile correctionaleduction. The authors note that-becaute the studies.arecomprehensive in what they attempt to do, they can be consideredseriously by policymakers particularly at the national level. Titlesof the studies are "Corrections," "Educational Programs in AdditCorrectional Institutions,","OED Testing in State PenalInstitutions," "Au Evaluation of 'New Gate' and Other PrisonerEducation Programs," "School Behind Bars--A Descriptive OviervieW ofCorrectional Education in the American Prison Syftem," "Education for;the Youthful Offender iu Corredtional Institutions,* "The CriminalOffender--What Should Be Done?" "A Tins to Act," "State-Local ,.

Relations in the Criminal Justice Systemen.au4 "The President'sCommission on Law Enforcement and Adiinistration of Justice{ TaskForce on torrections." (SH)

61,

Documents acquired by ERIC in.lude many informal unpublished materials not available from other sources. ERIC makes everyeffort to obtain the best copy available. Nevertheless, items of marginal reproducibility are often encountered and this affects thequality of the microfiche and hardcopy reproductions ERIC makes available via the ERIC Document Reproduction Service (EDRS).EMS is not responsible for the quality of the original document. Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made fromthe criginal.

44.

.

AN OVERVIEW OF FINDINGS. AND RECOMMENDATIONS r

I

OF MAJOR RESEARCH STUDIES AND NATIONAL COMMISSIONSf

4 .

CONCERNING EDVCATION OF OFFENDERS

.

Staff Report

Correct;onal Education Project

Educatibn Commission of the States

I

STAFF

James Peterson Project Director

David FriendAssociate-Director

Roger LauenModel Programs Evaluator

lU

Alex MarinState Liaison Specialist

ECS .PROJECr SUPERVISItil4

Wendell H. PierceExecutivt. Director

Ben MasonDirector ofPlanning and Development

Report /31

March 1976

copied of this booklet may be obtained for ;USG:

.

"t

y osPellirmilrfOP MagaSINWATION ilga ad

110VCAMN

nos DOCuesCNT Nod SUN WOW'Map ItigCTLY 24 OrSCEivtiD FROMTill 'HUN Olt 01111A1MATIONAT 6110 fit MOM ORSTAT.& CS NOT IlleariAlltiNial/AMM11, NATIONAL ileT rniTiI Oupts01. NMI Or out rouCT

4

a

The Correctionil Education Project is funded cooperatively by the Law Enforcement Assistvice Ad-ministration,-Washington. D.C.. and nierhhek stew of the Education Cotrunisaion of the States Mai).

2

-

5:

-

'4

-

Introduction

Corrections f r?

's ,

CONTE1SliS

.

O

Educativibl Programs, in 'Adult Correctional Institutions ......, ............ ,.....: ........ :,....... ....... ................. , ..

. . ." .

' GED Testing in State Penal Institutions . ... . " .1,...t

. ..----- . - . li

'... Evaluation of !lklesvGate" ano Othii PrisoMw t dut:aticn Symms J

ti 9 eft e

School Mind Bais:Corrictional tducaticm'in thd 4mentian Prison Sateen .,?

Education oior thd Youthful Offender Correctional Imeuiimpr.

1The Criminal OffenderWhaton

Be Done?.

. . President's Task .Force on Prisoner Rehabilitation

A 'rime to ActJoint Commission an Cprrectional Manpower

State-Local Relations in the Criminal Justice System s-Commission on Intergovernmental Relations

t's.Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration ofustice: Task Force on Orrections

0

.4

orii

i..

INTRODUCTIONr

In response to the needs of its constituents, theEducation Commistion of the States (ECS) began'gut Correctional F,ducatiori Troject in January1975. It had become apparent that the people inthe states who make decision abed .correctionsunderstand that correctionareducation 'must beimproved. At the same time, both because of con-flicting theories about, corrections lied the lack ofclear, comprehensive guidelines about What should

. be done, to make improvement, most legislators,governors, correctinps professionals and othersA*ve

r

often,been unable to Mime in the.directien of psi-tive changes. This appears to be the case in cot-

: rections as it is-with correctional education. .

Through an advisory ecimmittee leaders in state-, and federal government, education officials, the.

judiciary, corrections, religion and the private sec-tor, the three-year project of the commission is de-signed to accomplish these goals:

? To make recommenditions to the states toimprove educational opportunities Of adultand juvenile offenders.

.promote cooperation among state andlocal groups to bring aboUt needed changes.

To develop, plans for 'implementing alterna:tile educational Approaches that take accountof differing needs and resources of the states.

In addition to state involvement activities over a,three-year period designed to provide the states op-portunities to examine alternatives for improve-ment, ECS will provide educators, legislators, cor- .rections professionals and governors in the stateswith comprehensive analyses orevailable research..

In recognition of the fact that there is little com-' prehensive research about correctional eddcational there is little comprehensive research about cor-rectional systems --the project will pull together thematerial' that does exist, With an awareness that'much of this research is'not geared to meet policy-making needs, the motley iniplicktions of major re-search (studies. about corrections and correctionaleducation will be distillecr'ancf. provided to thestates.

The following sections' include analyse:, of two kind s'of studies thift relate directly to correctional edu-cation:

The work of five national commissions thatlooked at a variety of critical issue. in cor-rections, Including correctional education.

1

a

The five published national studies that spe-cifically address, in a.. comprehensive way. .

issues in either adult or juvenile correotional /..education. . . .

41, -Although there are other minor studies, selection;of these was decided on the basis of comprehensive=ness, the need to exclutle studips that duplicateothey works and 'findings and availability to peoplewho wisro review complete reports. Evrty,wit) .those c erie, it is evident that there are /gape inavailable materials, a lack of specificity end con-flicting,emphases about even the most fibdaefentalissues in correctional eilucatia'n. / -

, -There is no adeqiate way to artilyes, these ma-terials for common findings and recommenda-tions. The purposes and methods qt all the inquiriesare different. thekrromyiendations about educa-tion tend to brgenerid and prioritielfor these can-not bey rankereither within or between the studies.However, these works, heeause they are comprer'pensive in what they attempt to do, can'and shouldbe considered seriously by policy makers on theirOwn merit. -Bach inquiry was- conducted b highlyqualified people to address specific no, as relative.to corrections and correctional education. Within'their scope, ell * studies were indent to' havean impact on natienal policy, and each.nisde derm- .

itive and influential contributions toward definitiotiof the problems in correctional education and feas-ible solutions., 7 -

"Correctional education" generally means the edta:cational programs and processes available to adult

juvenile offenders after adjudication. Also, theterm usually refers to institution-hased, educationof inmates The commission and revarch reportssummarized here reflect this traditional interpre-tation for three 'reasons:

Although most offenders ate fn communitieson probetien, parole. or various "diversion"programsahe 'failures and problems of bleb=tutionsadqjt prisons, juvenile institutionsand training schoedshave gained me .1 public 1-!

notice over the pest 10 years than the failuresand problems of community programs.

-°'_

Despite the fact that the number of adjudi-cated offenders in communities is myth;greater than these in institutions' capprosi-.mately 1,300,00G against 250,000), there arevery tentespecial educational -programs for offenders in communities. This lack of national

. attention to development of community-based'*. o.

tor

correotionsfor

and 211b pcational opor-tunitios for probationer4 and parolees hasMeant*. that there has been little for nationalcommissions and research 'projects to evalu-ate. Institutional programs., thergfore. have

provided mort of the substance for nationalinquiries.

Although almbst every national commissionhas ,said that development and utilization ofcorirmunO resources in corrections should bea Wimary focus of national corrections cffOrts.and . that all educational programs -fqr of-fendersas well as staff-should be upg'raded,80 percent of correctionlexpenditures accord-ing to the Law Enforcement Assistance Ad-ministration (LEAA) are still concentrated in'custody and administratiVe areas. not pro-grams? As a consequence, program develop-

, ment has not been consistent with commission

fee,

recommendations. Each commissior andndwill, therefore, continue to go over much theSame ground.

.1In light of this, the ECS Correctional EducationProject Advisory Committee is concerned aboutaddressing the most difficult questions dealing withimplementatiort, both of the recommendations ofprevious research projects and commissions 'and ofits *own.recommendations. Through involvement ofthe states in 1976 and 1977, it is the intention ofthe coMmittee tp develop alternatives for statepolicy and administrative alignments, to developmodel legislation and to indicate specifically howcommunity agencies, schools and private agenciescan assist in improving educational opportunitiesfor both institutionalized offenders and those incommunities. Recommendations centering on localjails incarcerating an estimated. 700,000 adults andjuveniles each day will also lie made.

.

1

Even though each previous study or commission didnot address ',midi question. for the purpose of sort-ing and summarizing findings and gcommend4ionsabgut ,edpcittion into, a common framework,' thefollowing questions were used:

.What kinds of edricational services should bedelivered to. adult or juvenile offenders? (Inwhat curricular areas should improvementsbe mkde an funds concentrated ?)

/What kinds N improvements in the way serv-rc, are delivered (environments, teachers

'And mgth,x14) to adult atidtjuverfile offend-. . .

.

1

2.

era are necessary to increase effect,Venesseducational services?'

What shoul d'be the role of public sch s (in.eluding colleges and universities) correc- .tional education?

.

What should be the role of the 'private sector(volunteer groups, labor organizations,' pri-vate enterprise, churches)?

What means should be established to insureaccountability of correctional education(evaluation, governance, etc.)?

5

S

II

Sumrhary of Comections

National-Advisory Commissicin on Criehinal Justice Standards and boats

Washington, D.C. (197:;)

r

.A. Background . .

The report on Corrections issued by the Na-tional Advisory Commission on Criminal JusticeStandards and Goals; begun by the LEAA ooOct. 21, 1971, reportid a 'clear statement ofstandards establishing a national strategy tore- .duce crime through improvement of police, ju. . .

.and correctional systems and practices.

.

Education of offenders was an important area ofconcentration in the work of the task force thatexamined corrections. In .general; priority wasgiven to more extensive use of community-basedtreatment altematives'probation, parole, di-

version and use of community correctional fa- .cilitiesover institutional approaches. As a con-sequence, while recommendations were made forimprovement of institution;based 'education*, theintent ef, the commission was both to acknowl-edge the importance of improving education foroffenders requiring incarceration and at thesame' time stress 'the need for more and better,correctional services, including edulkion,the community.

Working closely with the staff, the 19 membersof the task force on corrections.developed 159specific standards focusing on the Ablems ofmodern correctional practices and regulations..High recidivism rates, riot and unrest in prisons,allegations Otbutatity and degradition, the in-creasing litigation agginst correctional officialsand indignant public reactions attested to theneed for change in..eorrections. -

The task force found that the 'American cor-rectional system appeared to offal Minimum .

protection for the public and maximum'harm foroffenders. Evidence reflectedithat. the .longerthe period of incarceration, the sweatier. the

. chance those individuals would lead liw-abiditig olives n:the otitside. It found that eduelitionwithin the-American correctional oystem.lias not

4 " kept pace with the social, econOmic, political .and technological realities of society. The.qual-ity and relevance of sducotaimaivrorallalf. Inif:

ih. .,:-.:.---ticttinririttft&lifitid juvenile institutions, havesuffefed tremendously because of this" The.pri-orities oitablshed -for community and jnstitu-tidnal educafitin are not commensurate withtoday's demands and expectation.

. ,

A

The task fbrce developed stentards and record-mendationsitbat will/influence the correctional- .system ,end its relationship. to the -griminaljustice system in thisanation for years to come.

.'B. .Findings and Reionimejdations /

The task force proposA fun mental' improve- ,.

ments in coirectionatrucate services and de- - .`-livety networks::

N.. e

sr 4

Educational literricula .shuld be develoiSicir ...

with inniate involvement and should teach ..--

social and Foping alfilis as' well as Providebasic academic. competeocy. I '''. ,.Learning laboiatories fOr basiAter develop- --mint should be maintained by-4 educationdepartments'. ..

Both 'educatiOnkle and vocational programs-should emphasize programmed ipstruetion al-lowing maximign flexibility Scheduling,providingkofiell-pating and giving immediatef eedback:on student progress.. ,

.

Alehg with meeting state certification re-qqi IrrientO, teadien should have additional

, couffe work in social edu tion, reading in-fitruction and .abnormal psychology.

: .Teacherse'

111"kietVkile. institution* s id ,also

be certiffertiii.WhAxeihtionaL chi n sand)have experiboce m teaching e p chik

Ldren. .(4i,"

Each education *department slidtld have tacertified school psychologist *and a studentpegimetti _worker'. .

%felecte'd offinders,should partiCipate in in-structional roles in both educati I and vo-catipnar:proglams.

Each education depar tment slipi make op-tirnar use of .igimeationale praframs at localcolleges, work:study- programs, work-releaseprogr,inti and. work-furlough. profiams.

Correspondence courses should.be made avail-...able to inmates for course work that cannot

be obtained locally.

1

.

41#

Mi

"IPa

(64 VWlike is a tliticarlack!of jps ial educationalprograms for offendeis pl ed communities..Community resources xistit g public'. and

Irivate, schools, colleges and universitiessfiould be fully .utilized for both educationaland ocational -programs.

Each ecliiationsdepartmA should develop asysternlef reporting and evaluation that titilizes community representatives.

. rinstitutionA should critically examine theireducational and $ck'ational tiaining.programs

. .

r

La

_a .

a

'

110,

/

'..1,4!

S.

.

%

.

fe ;

to inPare that these programs meet standardsthat emphtisize on-going and comprehensiveindividualized education and training. Theseshould incluile:

a. An annual evaluation' of achievement datato ,reassure the effectiveness of all ro-

-grants.b. A ,systematic appraisal of all 'educational

programs using community representatives. as well as inmates and edtkation staffembers.

1

-11

7

1.

/ ,.

6

f

.

4

.

-.

16.

Summary of Ed gfitional Perami inylidjaiCorrectiotta instil tnsttossCorrectional 1

. . j. .i . . A . . 4, r. . .

. : . .. .

)I WesterntIntermate omission for gber 'Ed uea non.

A! BackgroundThis study of 'cerrectior'utilIdu.catio'n for adult 1.--

. offenders was coniple.ed by the Western Inter-' P

state 'Commission for :Higher Bducatioqili '(WICHE) during 14 sumirier`of 197g. Tile pre!" ',.mary objective of the study:was 'to#bain an

/ 1

demic educational t tnrograms. adfilt N iaccurate picture of the chrreiit statit

tiondl facilities. A survey form was sent tot9..state and federal correctional facilities; 'responded.

..- t .2 r te .

- The pioblem researched was the current statusLof academic educational prograips; particularly:

at the elementary and secondarS," levels, hvitil- - aable to inmates of adult correctional facilities.

q fSome of'the recommendations of the studylin.lis

,cluded increasing thconiperencies of educatbrsvP. . to, deal with a myiiad of special teaming 'prob.'

Aims, adding eiluctitional an4,:lacational coun-selors to the staffs of correctional institutions

, and increasing expenditures for diagnostic test- Ning.

Boulder; rohlradb ( f 3)1 e

110 S.

B. Fitdings and Recdmmendations

Many people in education familiar 'th som e."aspects of corrections became awire oftheshocking lack of knowledge about therstAte ofeducation in correctional settings. Thole Walk a ..

' desire on the part of the U.S, Office of Edu-':cation to find out what. particla,resqurcesactually existed and to determine 'needs hi thearea of peW educational programs.The outcome of .he.sbrvey was a baseline repoAof existing program'. This was expected Co con- .:

Ai eTeachers m correctional facilites.have loundthat inmates have learning' handicaps ndemotijinal problen, and lack olomotiva .

*Only 20 perceni of the teachers had special

i education training. ,. .. ' . 1 .

ilVeventy-four. peXelit--of fhecortectional'innkh-tutions suriteytql in*icatedra need, for more .and better diagnoltic testideof'inmates. \

' Additional pe net are needed41tir icuiarlyas academic nil _vocational .coiniaelo gen -,eral counsel° add librariads. ; .. '

70 4

Then, is a n fdrmore apecialtied teachersof sttidents with- partkularlearning problems:

1 * .:11' -'The average student-teacher ratio for all col..

ectional institutin1s was.11. 8 students loteach teacher. I 1

.II ;A. 1 . . ..

-.'V Twenty -four/..our

percenlsof the institutionalisetam teaching, 40 percent Awe eLlep 4assitoms, 07- krcedtruse diagiWtic tpstin44.2

portent, hive specialt edticational progratnsitteehind' 57 percent use nullvidbalized teaching-

niques. . ,... - - Of

tribute to sound' planning for future changes' ;1/4

Administrators of the correctional inst&tutionawere sent.the survey *instrument in June 1973.

-The survey included 25 items. No' statistical ..tests were employed in the analysis of data. By .

late September 1973,60 percent of those insti- ),-,tutions Ned responded by returning a completed .kquestionnaire. Due to the good responseand the i

fairly uniform geegniphic distributtion of re- .,...,turns it can be conMded that the inforritattonobtained, was reasonably representative df edu-cational programs in adult correctional Institu-tions in the United States. ' -.7

. % .,!r trey& percent of theinmates are patticiLiat-. ittg in remedial orelementary-level piogtarnk,

another 4 %stcentiate,in GEL) babigh school:level progra r6 peicent *re ii, college pro

' grimi silil.17rpercent are involved in voila -'tiottalprcitrame. 1 - ...

. ... -.. 4. ,The vast majoKty of the people surveyed' (0percent). indicated' that indrvidualiied teaching.-techniques vifould definitely improve eduCat anal ''programs ails! quality. Another sijnifiaant pro-

4por,tiolf of 'people:162 percent) indicated tlitttcogr4iniktion of pnigrantsinside correctional in-stitdtitgli would improve the uuality, of iducad

stional prograths. '.. . . .Thirtyfour percent of the institutions surveyed

claimed that aflditionaj academic teachers were'badly,needed. Thirtylx percent stated that vo'-ca

..ti

a'

onal an:Idieducatio al counselors s also .were

a

8 4:

1.4

Of the instiiutions surveyed. 48 perc neededmore mnney. 45 percent needed more space andfacilities, 36 percent needed special educationalmaterials, 65 percent needed continuing educe-

: ),tis.0

'et

"* . '

r

4

Nv.

4

4'

I

e

6

4

tion for teachers and 26 ,percent Maimed thatlinkages with the community would help,to im-prose the educational programs.

-

t

.

9

I

am

.

J

4

1

i

rA. ,Background

S

Summary of GED Testiog iu SlatqPinai InstitutionsJohn J. Marsh, Correctional Education, Vol. 25, No. I, Winter 197 i

In 1972 John J. Maish began an inquiry into-the implementation of GED tests, particularlyto the role of these tests in the total rehabili-tation plan oi penitentiaries.' In April 1972 a.survey instrument was sent to every state ad-ministrator 'of the General Educalion1)iploma(GED) testing program. tentative conclusionsand recommendatibns were made regarding at-

, titudes of state departments of educatioh andpotential areas of research relating GED test'stores with recidivism, frequency of early parolejob retention, etc.

. ., Correspondence between John .Mtirsh and the

Commission on Accreditation of Service Ex-periences of the-American Council on Educationrevealed a lack of information at the nationallevel regarding details of the procedures andpolicies of the administratiar of the -GED incorrectional facilities. According to the author,

' the survey was a "scouting maneuver" to locate. (",, the soft spots and determine the likely targetsfor further research and study.

A 16-item questionnaire was sent to the stateadministrator of the GED testing program in all50 states. The survey instrument ivallprefacedwith three restrictions: (a) only state-operatedprogams were included as apart ofthe sample;tb) correctional institutions were the only insti-, tutions included ilt the sample; (c) the nstru-ment was to be copleted Iyby state d rt-

' ment of et igation personfre1, not correc 'rnialstaff. In August 1972, foeir months,ecitte theinitial surveys were sent out, 49 of the 50 st teshad retyrned a completed questionnaire.

: -.. . .. .

B,. Finding:Land Recommenditions .

7 '. ...

' General findings furl reeomritepdatitnsware thfollowing: .. ... ' .

. Some'stale departments of Aucitfon do not\

see tne C ED preparation ant! tesng\imgrami

.

. '

S

.

more than an "administrative" responsi-bility.

There is an apparent lack of research in the .area of the GED in fiend institutions, es-pecially as these standardized data correlateto recietvism,.-frequency of early parole, jobretention, etc.

There were many unanswered questions gen-erated by the returned questiondaire, includ-ing: (a) What is the failure or success on re-test rate? (h) What are the different methodsof prenaration of the inmate for theGP.D and ,what are their comparative success fates?(c) How are these programs financed?

The study indirectly concluded that state de-partments of education could benefit from sitmore detailed knowledge correctional insti-tutions. further, educators and legeators couldcontribute to better delivery of educational serv-ices in correctional silstitutionp if they 'took an-active interest in the topic. The author did notelabqrate on what Gam This active interestmight take.

The author did nOrispeculate on what. role, ifany, colleges or publi schools could play in theimprovement of GED content, testing or evalu-ation of GED preparation programs. The focuswap on state departn3ents of education, the-AmericatreoThficil ort Educatiun and correctionalinstitutions. The author did not deal with therole of, theepsivate sector in the administrationof the 'QED:

fib

P

7

I

RecommoAdations for plaiining and monitoringof edtrational services were the following:

Thesstandardized test scores of the GEDshould be used to d# basic research in manyareas of corrections. The author listed a fewsuggestions for possible correlative research.

The author made some broad hints about theneed for more research in the area of cor-

-*rectional education.

0

Summary of An Evaluation of "Neu'aite!' and Other Prisoner Educatior Programs

'..Marshall, Kaplan, Gans and Kahn, Ap,ril'1973

,A. BackgroundThis study provides a corpprehensive review andevaluation of college-level prison educational

.programs in nine states, inckling five NewGateprogramsOregon, innesota New Mexico,Pennsylvania, Kentuck and four other prisoncollege educational progra s. Project NewGatewas begun as a' federplly funded protect in 1969.to ,provide pgstsecondary education to institu-tionalized adults. By 41972, eight states hadNewGate programs with full-time staff pro-viding counseling, some pladment in com-munity educational programs, college-level in-struction and postrelease supportive services.The four nonelewGate programsIllinois StatePenitentiary4Menard Texas Department of Cor-reetion; the Eastham Unit of Huntsville, Texas;`

'the Federal Correctional Institution, Lompoc,Calif.; and a college parole plan at the Cali-fornia State University at San Diegowere se-

' - lected on the-basisof their constituting.significcant variations from the NewGate programs.The study was funded by,..the, Office of Etlbcomic Opportuthry and conducteek by the con-

/ sultin, firm of Marshall, Kaplan, Gans andKahn, San Francisco, Calif. The final reportwas completes' in April 1973. The study wasdirected by John Irwin, who has since become aprofessor of sociology at San' Francisco StateCollege. 4,One of tw,o basic research objectives of the studywas to determine if these college-level ettica-tional programs affected the postprison careersof the' program particippts. The primary .re-search method selected to'perform this objectivewas a follow -up a 40 participants froth each ofthe nine study sites. Antinittalsample of 50 wasselected at each program, with the' intention ofactually completing 40 follow-Cap interviews.They were chosen randomly from a subiet of thetotal list of released pattipant. Participantswere defined as persons who had (a) passedfrom the inside phase of a program to the out-siae phase: (b) earned .12 semester units ortheir equivalent (15 -quarter units) in the in-side program even though they dropped out or

...*were expelled; (c) were presently involvedin a NewGate program; or (d) in the case of theCollege as a Parole Plan at San Diego StateCollege, all participants who were admittesi.The subset consisted of those participating inNewGate programs who were, released .before

8

Jan. 1, 19;24tnd those participating in non-NevGate pnrams who have taken coursesduring or after the fall of 1969 and were re-leased before Jan. 1, 1972.

Two different instruments were used on thefollow-up sample. The first was a baseline dataschedule on which information from the prisonfiles was gathered. The second was a follow-upinterview schedule completed in a face-to-facefield interview by one of the study's staff.

Attempts were made to create control groups,but these were contaminated early in the re-search, and the focus was shifted to the utiliza-tion of comparison grolips. This distinguishedthe validity of any generalizations that mightbe drawn from the research findings. The con-trol 'comparison groups were interviewed usingbasically the satne instruments as were used ininterviewing the program participants.

The second general research objective was toevaluate and,compare the different college edu-cational programs themselves. The principal_data collection techniques used included struc-tured interviews of education staff, instructors,prison administrators and guards. In addition, asmany inside participants as possible were giventhree separate self-administered instruments, allconstructed especially fat this study: the self-ad-ministered program participants questionnaire,the self-administered esteem /confidence scaleand the attitude change scale.The first of thesethe program participant questionnairesuptined information about different aspects of the...program and the participants' attitudes regard-ing the programa. The secondthe esteem,/con-(idenm scale--gave some comparison betweenprograms as to the amount of self-esteem andself-confidence of the participants. The last in-strumentthe attitude change scalewas aimedat measuring the change in the attitudes of theparticipant toward himself and other meaning-ful persons and in his perception of changes in-'others' attitudes toward him.

B. 'Findings and RecommendationsThe Marshall, Kaplan, Gans and Kahn studyproVides a large number of detailed findings andrecommendations regarding the development ofinstitutional adult offender college educational.programs, Thaw findings may be summarized asfollows: /

11

the extent that the arious measures of pto-,gratu success differentiated among plogfam pal

ticipants and s.imilar inmates not cmolled .1

college.educational program. the resultt, indnatethat participation in a NewCiate !migrant result-n a more successful post release career When

compared to a matched group of nonparticipantmmaies. New Gate pal t icuiants wee more likelyto be mploxed or ill ,C11001, to hat' betterstabilitx, less likely to hme «intiqucd drug indrinking problems and mole likely to continuetheir Valuation

Although t hes: findings, as well as those of thecase study (see chapte'r :3 of the stoly). suggestthat NewGate is a successful program, this suc-cess wa,4 not reflected in lower reidix ism fates.

In addition to two analyses of postpri an ca-reers, an attempt was al 0 made to estimate theeconomic benefit i() the society miterms of taxdollars generated Div persons-1011_0 w ing their par-ticipation in one of the college prison pregrarq,Based on a 10-year projection from income taxlevels found among the program p9rticipantsfollowing release, the study concluded "thatprison college educational programs pay forthemselves." With one exception (the Ashlandprogram), the increase in tax dollatsgeneratedby increased education work levels was reportedto he more thar repay,! the costs; to the tax-payers of providing that education, based on the20-year projection.

The hoard recommendations of ,t he -study aresummarized below in a form that provides anoverview of an extensive discussion of more spe-cific issues and recNKnendations that are con-tained within ChapteiV1 of this study.

"College programs in prison that- provide acollege atmosphere beyond the classroom andoffer complementary support services (e.g..speciarrecruitment, academic, vocational andtherapeutic counseling, remedial instruction.prerelease assistance and financial and emo-tional support on a college campus after re-lease) appear to be the most effective kindsof programs in fulfilling educational goals.

"The college program in prison ;41iould be ad-dressed and equipped to meet the needs Ofinmates who not only demonstrated capa-bility and motivation but also those withlatent potential.

"There should be an open-admissions policythat permits all inmates to par4cipate whocan meet and maintain certain olijective per-formance standards. This admissions poli.yshould he accompanied My a vigoroqs out reach

f

effort to.,1«itia,int all inmates xoli the plo-gram and a college picpaiat.w. !Itthat helps apple ant inala ,e ail( mit titin lent Id's 'Lids admission- pole \ -shoutl 41-obe a. companied giing Itdl tllttt staiost.,ill adnuttud students .110 ,..int.it"..nd It. 'lost-.tiling a Log.. number .11111 dieisitottei ings tIltitin, -in I 1.11

tit -tuft lit \%h) -till II,tk tsp(;ai tal,'i'crsons'tiunposing the stall of p11-4....1rcgc,programs ?should he !immix driwn tvall andmaintain loots in the at,l,lenut ttm,nlunit\Thew also ;;Imuld he pctiwio stilt rotationfrom 4he to the «)IIt gt No -tali niem-be should %0..h MOW t11,1:1 III an\prison tulle;;(' ptutzt:itn

"'I herapy should be offered to ininatcetsof their actelcnic plogam Roth m10.1(111,11and group sesqms should he otfcred and in-mates should he perniuted to part I( unite ona ollintary basis. mallv. information re-

f/ ealed maherapxsessious sitouid not be used,for the purpose 01 inmate exaluation.xedlance. fact- finding or interiogn.tion tinstaff member should be trix ol.e4 in ealuatingstudents to whoa\ ht gi ing therapy.

,"Decisions to inovnte fnuint dal supprxit in thepost release 018,se of,a college firogram shouldbe made on the basis of obie%.1.ie predeter-mined standards of performance

Insetting up a postrelea4e compennnt, thecollege program should try to roncentrAte itsreleased participants on one or two noarbxcampustN and support them by au alte art;office. Ideally, the outside program'shmild besituated on a large urban or large ruralcampus while also providing the opt ton to itsstudentstof attending a sviall:r collegetnelirbx

"While attending school on carripus, 'programparticipants shout have part-time, robs aftera minitnum,peri«if adjustment. These Jobsshould lie related to their studies ft.g., teach-.

tutoring,cmuiscring. research).

"Released students on out4ide support shouldbe required to in a program residencehouse for h mi... nimum period. However. the.liongth- of time required to stay it one tran-sitionary stage (e.g.. program residence house.study release :j,fitlIS. parole, eft should beshort and mater explicit."

The Mtrpihall, Kaplan and-Gam: studx;4urther.recommended that prison -haled college pro-

,, grams should define' their relationstup with ey-ternal environments In the fulbming specif-,ways:

9 t2

ir

k, I'll.rogram operations should neither be com-pletely fused with nor completely insulatedfrom the prison routine. While certain areasof. autonomy must be guaranteed and re-,seeved by the college prograrrie certain -ar asin who. h there is a poteritirl source of dis-agreement should be narrowed through nego-tiation In addition, the college programshould compensate the prisOn adininistrationfor its loses in authority b4 proyiding theprison new unexpected benefits (e.g., en-hancing the high 'school and vocational edu-cational progrons).'rTheI...,Ilege program shoal prevent the de-eimpinent of resentment' and division 'be-tween its participants and inmates in thegeneral population. It should do the followingthings:. (1) grant participants only thoseextra privileges that are functionally required

*by the student role; (2) assign its students a.regular formil 'role providing education AndVerhaps other services to nonparticipants; (3)adhere to a deliberate and highly visible policyof recruiting persons from all class and ethnicbackgrounds; (4) if-necessary. contrive a bal-ance by malting special provisions to assistperfons «ho c)(1 not meet all qualifications at

4

s

I I

10

, e

the outset (without lowering standards); and(5) influence the prison to develop compar-able opportunities for other inmates. who arenot interested in the college program.

"College programs should not intervene . . re-lease decisions. Release on study or paroleshould be automatic and based on predeter-mined criteria. If such decisions are not madethin way, the college program should exert its

.influence to change procedure rather than tosacrifice the quality of its program by ap-proaching the problem on a piecemeal basis.

"The university tystem should be integrallyinvolved in th0 priOn college program, shar:ing with the prison in the planning, adniin-isteting and governing Junctions. One possiblemechanism for performing these functions isa governing 'board of -directors consisting ofrepresentatives from the prison Al the uni-versity.

"The, college program should be structuredinside the prison as part of a pgrallel author-ity hierarchy that has links with the univer-sity system that provides it'resousces and ex-pertise."

13ye.

Summary of School Behind BarsA Descriptive Overview of

Correctional Education in the Amet:icun Prison System

Syracuse UniVersity Research Corporation (1973) .

A. Background

The Syracuse University Study4(SURC), com-pleted in June 1973, with Michael Reagen, proj-

N-ect director, provides a general overview ofproblems and needs, primarily in adult cor-rectional education. Between January and June1973, prisons, prison officials, teachers andothers across the country were interviewed andsite evaluatims were conducted. General recom-mendations for inipkvement of adult coffer-

-- tional education were made to the Ford Founds-,tion, sponsor of the study.

The poor quality of educational services avail-able to achdt offenders, primarily in prisons, wasresearched. According to SURC, a number ofsmaller, less come ,ehensive studies have indi-cated critical educational needs of both adultand juvenile offenders. More compiehensivestudies were needed to determine the nationalextent Of these educational needs and the natureof educational services being made available.Because of the "volatility" of prisivivi and theapparent inability of decision makers to dealwith significant .roblems, including educationalneeds, SURC cond4cted the study to providefor the Ford Foundation what its researcherscalled the first :'descriptive overview of cor-rectional education in the U.S." (p. vi).13ubl:cattitudes professional inattention to educa-tional ne"-, jealousy of correctional officers,cultural-Sha retrial differences in prisons, "pris-onization" factors, physical structures of pris-ons and lack of, critical research are identifiedas significant barriers" to itnproJement.

ACcording -to project staff, the report- is not tobe considered the definitive Work. on educationalprograms in American prisons, but to:

Provide a descriptive-analytical overview ofprograms. ;

Provide answers to. basis' questions..

Support alternative ways oaf making improve-thents.

I Discuss critical elements,of prisons that affectcorrectional education.

J

Correctional officials and others involved inprison education were interviewed at 38 prisonsand 17 central prison systefn offices in 27 statesacross the country. The resource network wasmade up of 360 documents and discussions with300 individuals. Questionnaires were used forformal interviews. These, with the analysis sum-mary forms, are included at the back of thestudy.

Although a cross section of programs was evalu-atedranging from jails to 20 institutions "dill-tinguished by the uniqueness and excellence oftheir programs"and prisoners, ex-offenders andcorrectional professionals were interviewed,there is no claim in the study that it is "repre-sentative" in a research sense or comprehensive.The study was, however, conducted in a wayconsistent with the study objectives indicatedabove.

B. Findinss and Recommendations

General recommendations are advanced regard-ing curriculum, objectives 'and the _philosophyof offender education.

Curricula should be diverse enough to meetdiffering needs and expectations of inmates..Both curricula and teachers should avoidcontent arid teaching methods that have theeffect of reinforcing feelings of inadequacy orinferiority.

Vocational prograins should be relevant to thejob market and help to insure satisfying em-ployment.

Curricula should be generally adopted to sys-tems change in corrections, particularly tomake use of community resources as correc-tions moves toward community-based cor-rections.

Educatianal objectives should be redefinetl."It is not immediately clear what the re-visionsvisions may entail" tp. 273). For example,since trained offenders typically don't findjobs in the area of their training, "the con-tents and methods" of vocational educationneed to he. "revised accordingly."

n 14

I

a A

Affective as well as cognitive goals should bestressed to improve attitudes and self- confi-dence.

There should be adequate 'diagnosis of edu-cational or training needs. Achievement level(native abilitie- and future obje'ctives shouldhe thoroughly considered.

Training standards for teaching staff andquality of methods and training should berinsed. "Cost-effective education will be se-cured most readily by raising rather than bylowering standards from the state we arepresently in" (p. 275). There should be in-creased "professionalization" to attract com--

-petent teachers.

T chnological advances should be used be-cause they may increase motivation, arestandardized and validated (e.g., program-med instruction) and may remove interper-sonal problems of teachers and inmates.

Educational management and administrationshould he upgraded and "professionalization"encouraged.

Business and industry should be encouragedto participate in job training and placement

Efforts to reintegrate offenders should beholstered. -Bridging, supporting and reinfoc-ing" activities should be strengthened andspread out over longer periods of time.

Teachers...should instruct in positive ways.They should not come across as "mission-aries."

Imolvment of colleges ancruniversities indelivery of education to offenders is promis-ing: however, it should he done after a "con-certed effort of planning and research." Thesepossibilities should he explored to expand-inipate involvement ip education.

I

I

tt

O

12

All educational programs should "articulatemore closely with institutions and organiza-tions of the free community" (p. 283).

Involvement should address principal prob-lems of the past.a. Outside programs have. agendas other than

prison education and regard prison educa-tion as tangential to their principal con -cerns.

b. Typical programs have had volunteerteachers who, because they were volUntkers,lent little stability or continuity to educa-tional programs.

c. Such programs, as a success criterion,"could be managed by those managin_g theprison community" ( p. 263).

Business an iedustry should be more ex-tensively involved. Volunteers should be usedwith 'care in educational delivery.

Recommendations above should be utilizedas criteria for success. -

Basic research into education as an aspect ofcorrections should be expanded.

Strong evaluation components in educationalprograms are essential.

Evaluative research about differential out-comes should be done.

Edwational programs should be able to adaptto rapidly changing demands in a complex

.society. "Heavy commitments to traditionalprocedures and structures should he avoided"

p. 282).

,The ,Ford Foundation should establish a r.l-tional corrections foundation to set standards,in large part, for correctional education andprovide support for needed improvements.

5

,Summary of Education for the Y outhf n1 Offender :n CorrectionatInstitutions

Western Interstate Commission on Higher Education

Boulder, Colorado (1972)

e.-

A. Background

The WICHE study of educational services forjuvenile offenders was completed in late 1972.A survey was sent to 40 juvenile correctionalinstitutions in the western U. S., including1about500 teachers and over 7,500 youths. The pur-pose of the study, was to assess the kinds andquality of educational services in juvenile cor-rectional facilities. Specific- recommendationsfor improvement of correctional edu-cation were made.

According to the findings, one million childrencome to the attention of the Courts annually;50,000 delinquent children are confined in cor-rectional institutions and most of these youthareteducationally behind their age gtoup. Thetypical delinquent youth has an academic com-petence one to four years below the averagefor his age.

The study was not intended to be representative,of all juvenile correctional programs. The Staywas designed to: (a) defilie the problem in szolia way that solutions could be devised and ,h)develop position statements that would, pr.,videthe basis for solutions.

Superintendents of 40 western juvenile correc-tional institutions were contacted. Pertnitsionwas granted to send the survey inztiurilent tothe education director of'each institution. Fourof the 40 institutions had no educational pro-gram; of the remaining 36, 29 (80 percent) re-sponded to the questionnaire.

B. Findings and Recommendations

Conclusions of the survey took many forms andtouched many areas in corrections philosophyand practice. The following are & number of thefindings and recommendations.

The overall student-teacher ratio was 8.93students for each teacher.

Sizty-seien percent of the vocational teach-ers are paid by the correctional institution inwhich they pork.

Eighty` percent of the institutional schoolsuse idividually prescribed instruction, andabout half of the inmate'studen Vparticipatein this.

Specific social skills needed in dealing. withreal-life problems outside the institution aretaught in very few schools.

Mast education directors felt they had ade-quate classrooms, biit over one-third said theyhad insufficient hooka, lihrarx facilities andspecial materials.

Median salary for all jeachers in the surveywas $11,363.

Although only about 10 percent of the stu-dents are below high school age, 60 percentof them have not achieved beyond the eighthgrade. .

Teachers report that...about half the studentsare seen ashaving reading difficulties or otherproblems requiring remedial training; 71 der-cent are reported as having social problemsthat interfere with: their ability to make aca-demic progress; 43 percent have emotionalproblems; and the list of learning problemsgoes on.

Nearly half (47 percent) the teachers of aca-demic subjects judged their formal educationas inadequate.

The physical remoteness of correctional insti-tutitms has worked to sever Ges with the com-munity.

ronimuility attitudes \against delinquentyouth present serious soda' barriers.

Educational resources in institutions areoften inadequate, of poor quality and irrele-vant to future educational or vocational pur-suits.

Public schools will have to find a way of de-livering self-enhancing education with an em-phasis on humanizing interpersonal relation-ships.

Career education could be easily realized in"a number of ways, including work-study Oro-

.

13166

wo

giams, internships, apprenticeships, voca-tional and professioial study and individualassignments to paid and volvnteer craftsjeople.Extensive efforts should be made to encour-.

. age the utilization of ex-offenders in the in-structional process.

luservice and specialized training for existingeducational staff could be taught throughhigher education facilities, providing credit toteachers.

)

., .

..

Institutions of higher education should ,de-velop meaningful curricul9 for students goingtae6rrectiohs education.

Public schools should move to iiWolve stu-dentF in ;school governance and other areasof school life on reserved only for facultyand administrators.

Career education, if the public schools wouldadopt it comprehensively, would unite the .school to -the wgrld of work.

0. ,i I,

a

14 -

A. Background

Sutnmary of The Crimina OffenderIVha-1 Should Be Ceire

President's Task Force on Prisoner 11.4habilitation r

January 1970

Vthis task force met from Oct, 16, -1969,*.jetf,:.27, 1970, to determine federal priorities :forprisoner rehabilitation. Three criteria were usedto develop the final report: (1) urgent need,

. (2) probable public acceptance and (3) prob-able financial support. Previous' recommends-

, tions were studied by 14 interdisciplinarypeople. The task for& made broad recommenda-tions &both correctional system changes and therole of the federal government. Recommenda-tions about education were limited and general.

lbe task of this commission was, to make gen-eral recommendations about offender rehabili-tation, both adult and juvenile. Apparently, no.original research was conducted. The commis-sion assigned priorities to research findings andrecommendations already complete to assistthe' federal government and states toward im-plementation of improvements.

The commission "concluded early that there wasno need . . . to search for new ideas about reha-bilitating prisoners .; . . the voluminous Mers .

tare on the subject overflowed with excellentideas that never have been implemented nor, inmany cases, even tepted. . . . We conceived ourtask es one of devising mechanisms throughwhich the federal government might help con-vert a few of the moat promisinfel tose ideasinto action." ..,(1`.

The commission sought to recommend -actionsthat would be both publicly and financially sup-portable at the time the commission issued itsart.

.

Since recommendations about education werePert of general recommendations about correc-tions and the overall inquiry method did notinvolve research, there were no specific target ,

groups. Priorities were assigned according to fi-nancial and public support constraints to pos-.Bible 'changes in wnoctions. _Educationalchanges were part of those -recottunendations.No claim was made by the,commission for com-prehensiveness. Seipbers formed committees in

.

(k.

priority areas; heard presentations and con-,. ',suited with various groups.-

1B. Findings and liecommendetions

The commission's zegonimendations were ex-clusivelyhimited till vocational training. Jobe foroffenders and needed training were. *n to bemoat critical and' at the heart of any, correctional progiarn. The follOwing recommendations-were made: ft g

?The PresiSenttu

id establish a nationalagency to stimulate, in the states and locali-ties, adoption of programs for the employ -' .ment and training of crimitiel offenders"(p. 2).

.

"The United States Civil Sertice:Cotnrnissionshould devise and pint into operatfon a plan tostimulate federal employm_Vt of ex-offenders'(p. 2).

"The Board of Directors of Federal' Pristin.Industries, Inc.,- -should undertake a studyof the wer its annual dividend to thelrea-sury might be used in the area of prisoner re:habilitation, with special, emphasis on jobs,arid job-training program (p. 4)."The-NationalInstitute of Law Enforq ementand. Criminal Justice of the Department ofJustice should frame guidelines for stale andlocal governments concentine the employ-ment of ex-offenders" (p "1:

. Regionalization. Two anu....Mal recommen-dations were made bearing on education: toprovide better services, including education topeople, on short-tenn safitences, the federalgovernment should encourage they states toregionalize jail systems and pool financial analservice resources. Secondly, the federal gov-ernment should encou regionalizetion ofdiagnostic facilities NI Mendota, includingthose on parole and probation, in Order tobettet determine which services should. bepro-. W. It was recommended that selectedmetropolitan areas should be used.

15 18

A

Sumuriary Of A; 'ime to Act,

,The Joint Commission on Correctional Manpower

Washington7IS,C. (19(18). v.

-0A. Backgiumd

. .

The Joint Commission on Correctional Man-power and Training, established by the Correc-tional Rehabilitation Act of 1965 ( P.L. 89-178);conducted a three-year.study of educational and

. training resources of the correctional employeesof the country. In determining the manpower,education and training resetircee required to in-crease the effectiveness of the eingcloyees of thecorrectionalpeld responsible for adult and juve-nile offenders, the commission fonnk that ap-'athy, inadequate funding, Pleceingal program-ming and la& or public support and under-

'standing characterize the correctional field.

Thd purposes of the study ere .ta determinethe 'adequacy of educational anititraining re-'sources lot persons in and about. enter thecorrection field, the effectilnesi of methodsof recruiting personnel and the extent to whichpersonnel in the field are utilized iii hulkingoptimum use of their various qualifications..Additionally, the study, was Intended to en-

- lighten the educational community; federal,state and local legislative bodies; a.vi the gen-orel public to allow ni! to work together withthe correctional community to bring about amore effective correctional sysitem.

Every adult and jilyenile federal and statecorrectional institution and every state-levelprobation and parole agency in the denary wassurveyed or consulted to either the 'necessaryinformation on the 111,000 -plus employees ofthe correctional' syst4m (excluding those work-ing at jails)..In examining ways to enhance the

. , capabilities of those:employees responsible forover 1,115,000. adult,and javenili-offenders ina system spending in excess of $1 billion, the

a 95 merber organizations of tie Joint Commis-sion aided the study. Three major national sur-veys,,study seminars, consultant papers, specialresearch projects and site visitations were allird in the effort SO reach the study's objectives.

I

t'

/

I

are limited by the extent of the quality of prep-aration that t employees of the correttionsfield bring witMem. Sixty-five percent of thetop administrators within the juvenile correc

nal field and 60-percent :n the the adult arearted serious problems recruiting "1.wat-t-trained" personnel (counselors; teachers,

'social workers, etc.). ,

Specific recommendations:

Colleges, universities and privatetgroups witha experience and capabilities in the training'` field should devel "training-of-traitiert"

programs to meet tfie needs for adequatelytrained persohnel.

Colleges, universiries and private groups, should also on in an active manner to seek

federal funds to coordinate the federal effortIll educating and training of correctional em-ployees. This appears 63 be a pborly coordi-nated federal effort.

The- uncle/graduate- degree should be a re-. quired qualifier for entry-level positions in

probation and parole.

Serious efforts should be extended by colleges,universities and the federal govertmiert todove* and assist on-going educational el-forts airfiediir producing degree - carrying .in-dividualsAsithin the ctiminal justice area:

A national recruitmint program should beaimed at uplifting the general public's imageof the correctional field. This mould slierallow persons interested .in becoming ern-

* ployed within the field to do so.

State and local agencies providing such basicservices as education and vocational educa-tion should expand their programs to insurea greatly increased level of available servicesto offenders in he community.

B. findings and Recommiedations.

The commission found generally that the qualityof services that 'inmates can expect to receive'

,

. Is areas such as management development,research, basic education and job training,the priVate sector may be better able to pro-vide considerable experience, and federal andMate funding should be !Nide available to

t investigate this.

ea.

16 9

Sisnimary of State-Lpcal Relations in the Criminal Justice System,

Commission on Intergovirmnental Relations, August 1971.

A. Background

Commission on Intergovernmental Rela-tions report was issoed and approved in January1971- and printed in August. A 26-member ad-

.

visory panel of priVate and public sector repre-sentativesstate, local and federalmaderecommendations based on staff work to ex-mine alternatives for improvement in inter-govgrrunental cooperation fin criminal justiceN processes. Court, police4courts and correctionswernaludied, and both adult and juvenile swatsWere 'covered. Reemnmendations about educe-'titer were -limited and general, focusing pri-niarily on -adults in prison.The commission ekamined the operations andproblems of 50 state-local criminal justice sys-tems. Special attentioq was given to the need,for more expeditious and coordinated.processes."To examine, evaluate and recommend changesdesigned to strengthert the intergovernmentalrelations that undergird" the rrigpinal justicesystem, the commission identified the bllowingmajor problem areas specific to corrections:

"State-local reorsanization of corrections ad-. ministration.

"Interiocal cooperation in the development of

"Fipanded paraprofessional involvement inregional penal facilities.

correctional systems.

"Mechanisms for promoting greater interfunc-tional coopeyation". fp. 11).

Identification of standaals for organization,funding and evaluation of police, court and ccr-rections functions was identified as critical. Byfocusing specifically on the intergovernmentalprocesses of the -.criminal justice system, thecommission hoped tp supplement the work ofprevious' commissions to address state and localimplementation issues. .

Friority areas for inquiry and recommendationwere decided on the basis of time constraintsand the overall mandate to make specific con-tributiqns to intergovernmental processes. Aswith its other studies of various state-local andfederal-state concern, the commission staff pre-pared historical and actual data from availablesources, provided in analysis of issue' and indi-cated elternetive solutions.

r

.B. Findings and Recommendations-

In recognition that tiaditional custodial fa-cilities have generally failed .to reintegrateoffenders, community-based programs shouldbe expanded-.

.Preservice and inserviCe training of all staff,invading teachers," should be markedly im-

. proved.

Because "over four-fifths of the offendersfrom 25 to 64 years of age confined in cor-rectional institutions lacked a high schooldiploma," better services should be provided.Academic curricula, teacher competence andteaching materials should be hiproved.

Vocational twining and prison irldustriesshould be upgraded.

Compensation rates ehbulst be rakao to. at-e tract more qualified teachers.

Professional counselors should be employ edto help inmates set up programa )o help pre

pcir them for. conummity life.

Incentives shade be developed to eneo6ragemore inmates to participate' in vocationaltraining and prison industry proOanis

Modern 'work methods and numagement mac-. aces, repeal of laws forbidding sale of prison:-made geode and Control of restrictive labor

-"union practices should be initiated to improvethe success of prison industries.

Use of programmed instruction can be ex-. , pended.

DThiough regionalization of facilities, includ-ing jails and detentimi venters, work andstudy release programs should be expanded,allowing pre- and post-conviction prisonersto spend more time in their cosimsunities.

UniVersities and colleges ilhould Ire en-couraged to offer ,extension Courses, withincorrectional institutions. 'They.can also assistwith noncredit self-improvement rules.

Private industry should ee encouraged to op-erste branch plants in Trr near correctionalinptitutions to provide training of inmates atprevailing wages. ,

17 2Q

I

, Aside from systetns improvement recommends-tions -aimed at the entire correctional system,both juvenile and adult, the commission did nagmake specific' recommendations about howquality educational services could' he insuredthniugh shifting and tightening of state or local.authority.. The recommendation most germane.

n 9 . 4

. .( , I ...

. a

.

4

4.

8

18

-orto the issue of educational accountability wasthat ". . . the states' responsibility for cor-rectional activities, "excluding the adjudicator),"fphctions of granting paroles or pardons, bevested in one state department or agency di-rectly accountable to the govermir" .( p. 56).

z 1

a.

'a

46,

2

ri

I

A. Background

Mandated by former President- Lyndon John-son, the Task ForCe on Corrections of.the Om-mission of Law Enforcement and Administra-.tion of Justico lamed its report in Febrile!),1967. A definitive study of all states and manyforeign countries was'conducted So obtain corn-prehensive data on all phases of- corrections:Correctional education was not given thoroughtreatment. Recommendations in' this area wefeadvanced as part of the comprehensive reporton corrections, covering both juvenile and adultareas. Education with reprtl to institutions,`

"I

a

. .

Siinunary of The Presiehnt's Corn mission on Law Enforoinent and

Administration of Justice: Task Fot:ce on Correctijs

Washington., D.C. (1967)'

7 0I

parole, probation and Oho" community pro-grams were discussed.

:

0

Stindards for educationk serOzes were der 1velofied as part of the more ezainsive ettenzpt

--to "identify the cpt))rtosns required tocarry out correctional p sati&etorilyand to permit experiinentation for aktinuedchange and improvement" (p., ix). With rigardto -edutatifon, the following graphs summarizelevels of education of institnullized. inmates.Comrarabladata for levels o rvices were notdeveloped.

FIGURE 1: COMPARISON OF EDUCATIONAL LEVELSGeneral Population and

Institutional inmates

7

ICYears of School Completed % General Population inmate Popislahon

College 4years or more. 1 to 3 mars

High Schgol 4 years1 to 3 years

Elementary 5 to 8 years. 4 years to none

Bylb aged sr25.64

4

8.4 1.1 .9.4 , 4.2

A,

I :071 27.612.4 o

-28.0 40.3 .

6.0 14.4,

.

per. .

Source: U.S. Department of Labor Manpower Administration. Of of Mannwercolicy, Evaluation, and Research. hued ondata from the U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census . I

,

Professional and technical workers 10.4. Managers and owners including farm 16.3

Clerical and sales 14.2Craftsmen, foremen 20.6Operatives 21.2Servicki workers. including household 8.4Laborers (except mine) Ind. farm laborers 10.8

and foremen .

a.

FIGURE 2: COMPARISON OPOCCUPATION EXPERIENCEGeneral Labor Force andeta

Institutional Inmates

Inmate Prior% General Labor Force Work.gxPeherva,111P

=IMMIIMM011

aimmismommore

2.24.37.1

17.625.211.531.9

AN

-

..

data re for Maki only since the correctional instituti4X; populatign is 95 percent male, data for males wore used toeliminate the affect of substantial differences between male and female occupational employment patterns.

Source: U.S. Department of Labpr Manpower Administration. Office of Manpower .Policy, Evaluation-Ina Research, based ondata from U.S. Department of Cpmmerce, Bureau of the Comte.

,s

-

-

a*

. "Assertions about the correctional enterprise inthe United States have been oharaeerized moreby rhetoric and polemic than factual documen-tation." Gathering of comprehensive and reliable information was seen as the' major task

') of this commission.

4 in addition; to the collection' of reliable' data 'toaid brlinogram planning, the commission soughtto ideplify the most promising theories andpractices-in corrections.

;A major Law Enforcement Assistance Admini-",,Tristration,funded survey of every state and 250

ountrls, was conducted. The survey soughtstatistiPal information on costs, nature and

" magnitude of, correctional programs. The Na-tillhal Center on Crime and Delinquency wasthe principal contractor for the survey researchand for interviews conducted with people and

.groups in every state:

Statistical results of the national and interne-t: nal studies are included to be reed with the_all task force report. Standards fqr evaluatingdata were developed-from previqus work'of theAmerican Correctional Association, the'Chil-dren's Bureau of the Department of HEW, Na-tional Council 'on Crime and Delinquency andthe National Association of Training Schools:

B. Findings and RecommendatiOns. . .

. .National attempts sfiopld be expanded to pro-mote. adequate diagnosis and differentialtreatment of offehtlers. This would result inmore cost-effective use of public funds..,There should, be regionalization or sharing r:feducational' and other services, particularly -,

for small and phort-term facilities.

Efforts should be made to minimize disruprlion of schooling fo juvenile offenders. Jail'educational rvic for adults and servicesin juvenile ten n centers should be greatlyexpanded. - ,.

Vocational training and job-placement seri-ices should be improved and expanded. .

Public attitudes, state .and local regulationsbarring hiring of offenders should be yste-matically addressed, . , ..

.. .

.No limit 'should be placed'on educational op-portunities, even though the greatest need isfor adult basic or General Education Diploma(GED) lavel,insthictiOn.

.

Interstaa trade barriers should be revised toallow interstate marketing of Rfison-proaldgoods.' Prison industries should be "proles-

.1I

I '

,

5.

sionalized" 'through staff, salaries, sales andmarketing practice improvements.

0- Work and study release opp ortunities shouldbe expanded for loth juveniles and adults.

Inmate instructors should be used only ifthey are qUalified and can effectively wok asteachers *bile subjeA to inmate social pres-sures. Commitment and credibility of teach-

. ers'are principal factors, .

Programmed instructitm ghouloften, in addition- to regul

be used moreteaching and

counseling services, in both adult and juvenileinstitutions.

Public schools have been and sheufd be usedto provide particular remedial ifistruct'ion tooffenders through contracts of probation de-partments and public schdols; to work closelywith probation and parole officers to helpoffenders make their way through schoolproblems; and to provide tutoring and coun-seling using specially trained workers to as-sist juveniles who may be on the' verge ofdropping out or who have been expelled.

Colleges and universities should play larger,parts in projects to help offenders with mo-ti%atioeal, behavioral and educatibn prob-lems. These can Lest be conducted outsideinstitutions.

Public schools, colleges and universitiesshould cooperate with correction? to expandwork and study release programs. A numberof models exist for these arrangements.

University staff and academic experienceshould be. applied to critical areas' of stafftraining and research.

Because of their _unique histbry in promotingcorrectional improvements and because theyare normally outside goiernmental control, na-tional and local private groups should be givensupport to accolinplish work in corrections, using

. the following criteria:

20'

"Projects that, by their nature, Would be in-appropriate for governMental implementation,An obvious example would be a ofpublic agencies in a situation in v.,&-Ch theindependence of the survey .is a prime con-sideration.

"Projects in community situations where re-h is needed but no competent public re-h resources are in sight.

a "Projects where the findings could be corn-Thunicated" and put to use through the 'net- -work of a private organization" (p.- 112).

41.

Recommehdations tpr planning and monitoringof educational services follow:

P Research and action programs should be moreclosely tied. .

There mould be greaterstandards and definitions.

comparabilitg of

.irEvaluation 4houln be integral to the manage -ment process.

16.

4

.

Concentrated efforts should be made to de-fine which data are relevant to which kinds ofdecisions. .

-

A high priority was given to Cbordinationandintegration of alf correctional functions. Manyof the organizational recommendations that aremade have direct bearing)on delivery of educU-tional services btipt are fiot included in detailhere.

21 24

I

.

4

'Chairman',

The Honorable Ed RerschlerGovernorof Viyorijings

Vice Clagirmen4 Mrs. Carolyn Warner4' Superintendent of Public Instruction 4.

Arizona State Department of Educatipa

Members

Grant Anderson .

Vice President, National Associatiorivof State Boards of Education'

CORRECTIONAL EDUCATION PRQJECT

ADVISORY COMMITTEII MEMBERS

cV

John ArmoreDirector, EspOffeilder ProgramNational Alliance of Businessmen

Banutt , I-CounselorMinnesota Restitution House

Janet Carretti _

Djubitiir, Itoject READ`American .rW/qtaial Association

ihrtHcciorable Parker Evattlost Carolina Slate Representative

_Ten Gibbons-r, Personnel services

New York District #12

Talionoriblo Joopb Harder'Kansas State Senator,

iieniEl Ventre College

Fnmcisco

Justice Programtes Jaycees

justiceService Committee

of Hatribonli Hospitals

Oovarnmant 1,1atiotin

Probation Daitirlmin

.

t,

Alan Parker ,"

American Indian Policy Review Commission.'

Leo OeiliaDirector, Community ServicesAFL-CIO

The Honorable Justine PolierDirector, Juvenile Justice DivisionRight to Care and TreatmentChildren's Defense Fund 1

Afilton RectorPresident, Natlonil Coon&

on Crime mai Petiaquency

R. Wayne feyEsecutive'SecretaryIciwa Board-of Regenhr

Felix Rodriquez.

'New-MexicoM Correcjipar

4

The HonorebIsPordonWashington State Senatr

Rosemery SealCo-Director, Natioriel

Jiivionle

The RemandPritcleel,Albutimequi,

Kenneth &MenConadmionerMbassotatispdrtment of Corrections

giscutm pine*,Amaticantorrectionid Association

%flonorable Ziti WeinshiankJudge, Damn District Court

WWIam *IsiahDirector ofLegitiativa ActionAmerican felloiationntlitatt,City and IthmitIpaIBmpkniests

5_ r

.'

.0

4,

0

%

411"'.1',

h;

O

.1,111

10,