Literacy Behind Barsnces.ed.gov/pubs2007/2007473_1.pdf · Literacy Behind Bars Results From the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy Prison Survey. U.S ... as our customer,

U.S. Department of Education

NCES 2007–473

Literacy Behind Bars

Results From the 2003

National Assessment of

Adult Literacy Prison Survey


NCES 2007-473

Elizabeth GreenbergEric DunleavyMark KutnerAmerican Institutes for Research

Sheida WhiteProject OfficerNational Center for Education Statistics


Results From the 2003

National Assessment of

Adult Literacy Prison Survey

May 2007


Margaret SpellingsSecretary

Institute of Education Sciences

Grover J. WhitehurstDirector

National Center for Education Statistics

Mark SchneiderCommissioner

The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) is the primary federal entity for collecting, analyzing, and reporting datarelated to education in the United States and other nations. It fulfills a congressional mandate to collect, collate, analyze, andreport full and complete statistics on the condition of education in the United States; conduct and publish reports and spe-cialized analyses of the meaning and significance of such statistics; assist state and local education agencies in improvingtheir statistical systems; and review and report on education activities in foreign countries.

NCES activities are designed to address high-priority education data needs; provide consistent, reliable, complete, and accu-rate indicators of education status and trends; and report timely, useful, and high-quality data to the U.S. Department ofEducation, the Congress, the states, other education policymakers, practitioners, data users, and the general public. Unlessspecifically noted, all information contained herein is in the public domain.

We strive to make our products available in a variety of formats and in language that is appropriate to a variety of audiences.You, as our customer, are the best judge of our success in communicating information effectively. If you have any commentsor suggestions about this or any other NCES product or report, we would like to hear from you. Please direct your commentsto:

National Center for Education StatisticsInstitute of Education SciencesU.S. Department of Education1990 K Street NWWashington, DC 20006–5651

May 2007

The NCES World Wide Web Home Page address is http://nces.ed.gov.The NCES World Wide Web Electronic Catalog is http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch.

Suggested Citation

Greenberg, E., Dunleavy, E., and Kutner, M. (2007). Literacy Behind Bars: Results From the 2003 National Assessment of AdultLiteracy Prison Survey (NCES 2007-473). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for EducationStatistics.

For ordering information on this report, write to:

U.S. Department of EducationED PubsP.O. Box 1398Jessup, MD 20794–1398

or call toll free 1–877–4ED–Pubs or order online at http://www.edpubs.org.

Content Contact

Sheida White(202) [email protected]

Executive Summary

The 2003 National Assessment of AdultLiteracy (NAAL) assessed the English litera-cy of incarcerated adults for the first time

since 1992. The assessment was administered toapproximately 1,200 inmates (ages 16 and older) instate and federal prisons, as well as to approximately18,000 adults (ages 16 and older) living in house-holds. The prison sample is representative of the1,380,000 adults in prison and the household sampleis representative of the 221,020,000 adults in house-holds in 2003.1 The 2003 adult literacy assessmentcovered the same content as the 1992 National AdultLiteracy Survey, and both assessments used the samedefinition of literacy:

Using printed and written information to func-tion in society, to achieve one’s goals, and todevelop one’s knowledge and potential.

Unlike indirect measures of literacy, which rely onself-reports and other subjective evaluations, theassessment measured literacy directly through taskscompleted by adults.These tasks represent a range ofliteracy activities that adults are likely to face in theirdaily lives. Prison inmates were asked to completethe same tasks as adults living in households.

iii

Literacy Levels

Changes in the Prison

Population and Prisoners'

Literacy Between 1992 and

2003

Comparing the Prison and

Household Populations

Education and Job Training in

Prison

Work and Literacy Experiences

in Prison

Criminal History and Current

Offense

1Household data collection was conducted from March 2003 throughFebruary 2004; prison data collection was conducted from March throughJuly 2004. Following the precedent set with the 1992 adult literacy assess-ment, for which data collection also extended into a second year and allprison data collection was conducted during the second year (1993), thisassessment is referred to as the 2003 NAAL throughout this report.

Three types of literacy were measured by the assess-ment on 0- to 500-point scales:

1. Prose literacy. The knowledge and skills neededto search, comprehend, and use informationfrom continuous texts. Prose examples includeeditorials, news stories, brochures, and instruc-tional materials.

2. Document literacy.The knowledge and skills need-ed to search, comprehend, and use informationfrom noncontinuous texts. Document examplesinclude job applications, payroll forms, transporta-tion schedules,maps, tables,and drug or food labels.

3. Quantitative literacy. The knowledge and skillsneeded to identify and perform computationsusing numbers that are embedded in printedmaterials. Examples include balancing a check-book, computing a tip, completing an orderform, or determining the amount of interest ona loan from an advertisement.

This report presents the findings from the 2003prison adult literacy assessment.The report includesanalyses that compare the literacy of the U.S. prisonpopulation in 2003 with the literacy of the U.S.prison population in 1992. It also includes analysesthat compare the literacy of the prison and house-hold populations in 2003.The analyses in this reportuse standard t tests to determine statistical signifi-cance. Statistical significance is reported at p <.05.

Literacy Levels

The Committee on Performance Levels for AdultLiteracy, appointed by the National ResearchCouncil’s Board on Testing and Assessment (BOTA),recommended a set of performance levels for theprose, document, and quantitative scales. Drawing ontheir recommendations, the U.S. Department ofEducation decided to report the assessment results byusing four literacy levels for these scales: Below Basic,Basic, Intermediate, and Proficient.

Below Basic indicates that an adult has no more than themost simple and concrete literacy skills. Basic indicatesthat an adult has the skills necessary to perform simpleand everyday literacy activities. Intermediate indicatesthat an adult has the skills necessary to perform mod-erately challenging literacy activities. Proficient indicatesthat an adult has the skills necessary to perform morecomplex and challenging literacy activities.

BOTA’s Committee on Performance Levels for AdultLiteracy also recommended reporting the 2003 resultsby using a separate category: nonliterate in English.Adults were considered to be nonliterate in English ifthey were unable to complete a minimum number ofsimple literacy questions or if they were unable tocommunicate in English or Spanish.

Adults who were classified as nonliterate in Englishbecause they could not complete a minimum num-ber of simple literacy questions were generally ableto complete the background questionnaire, whichwas administered orally in either English or Spanish;for reporting purposes, they were included in theBelow Basic literacy level. Adults who were classifiedas nonliterate in English because they were unableto communicate in either English or Spanish couldnot complete the background questionnaire; theyare not included in the analyses in this report, whichrely on background data. Adults who could not betested because of a cognitive or mental disability arealso not included in the analyses in this report, butin the absence of any information about their liter-acy abilities, they are not considered to be nonliter-ate in English.

Changes in the Prison Population andPrisoners’ Literacy Between 1992 and 2003

The rate of incarceration in federal and state prisons inthe United States increased from 332 per 100,000 in1992 to 487 per 100,000 in 2003. (These figures donot include jails.) The prison population was larger,older, and somewhat better educated in 2003 than in

iv


1992.The parents of prison inmates were also bettereducated in 2003 than in 1992.

■ The average prose and quantitative literacy ofthe prison population was higher in 2003 thanin 1992. In 2003, some 3 percent of the prisonpopulation was considered to be nonliterate inEnglish (figure 2-1).2

■ Average prose, document, and quantitative liter-acy was higher for Black3 prison inmates in2003 than in 1992, and average quantitative lit-eracy increased for Hispanic4 inmates. In 2003,White inmates had higher average prose, docu-ment, and quantitative literacy than Black andHispanic inmates. Black prison inmates hadhigher average document literacy than Hispanicinmates (figure 2-3).

■ In 2003, prison inmates’ average prose and quan-titative literacy was higher with each increasinglevel of education.For example, inmates with lessthan a high school education had lower averageprose and quantitative literacy than inmates withsome high school (figure 2-5).

■ The average prose and quantitative literacy ofincarcerated men increased between 1992 and2003 (figure 2-7).

■ Average prose, document, and quantitative liter-acy increased between 1992 and 2003 forprison inmates in the 25 to 39 age group. In2003, incarcerated adults who were 40 years oldor older had lower average prose and documentliteracy than incarcerated adults who were 25 to39 years old (figure 2-9).

■ Average prose and quantitative literacyincreased between 1992 and 2003 for prison

inmates who spoke only English before startingschool (figure 2-11).

Comparing the Prison and HouseholdPopulations

In 2003, a higher percentage of prison inmates thanadults living in households were male, Black, andHispanic, and a higher percentage had been diag-nosed with a learning disability. A lower percentageof prison inmates than adults living in householdswere ages 40 or older, and a lower percentage spokea language other than English as children.

■ Prison inmates had lower average prose, docu-ment, and quantitative literacy than adults livingin households (figure 3-1).

■ Incarcerated White adults had lower averageprose literacy than White adults living in house-holds. Incarcerated Black and Hispanic adultshad higher average prose literacy than Blackand Hispanic adults in households (figure 3-3).

■ Black inmates who had been in prison for ashorter period of time (incarcerated in 2002 orlater) had prose literacy that was not statistical-ly significantly different from that of Blackadults living in households, whereas Blackinmates who had been incarcerated since before2002 had higher average prose literacy thanBlack adults living in households (figure 3-3and table 3-3).5

■ In general, either prison inmates had loweraverage prose, document, and quantitative liter-acy than adults living in households with thesame level of highest educational attainment orthere was no statistically significant differencebetween the two groups. The exception wasthat among adults without any high schooleducation, prison inmates had higher average

v

Executive Summary

2 The design of the 1992 assessment did not allow the estimation ofthe size of the population nonliterate in English.3 Black includes African American.4 All adults of Hispanic origin are classified as Hispanic, regardless ofrace. Hispanic includes Latino.

5 The sample size for Hispanic inmates did not allow the separateestimation of literacy by length of incarceration.

literacy on all three scales than adults living inhouseholds (figure 3-5).

■ Both male and female prison inmates had loweraverage literacy on all three scales than adults ofthe same gender living in households (figure 3-9).

■ In every age group examined (16 to 24, 25 to39, and 40 or older), incarcerated adults hadlower average prose, document, and quantitativeliteracy than adults in the same age group livingin households (figure 3-11).

■ Among adults who spoke only English beforestarting school, those who were incarceratedhad lower average prose, document, and quan-titative literacy than those who lived in house-holds (figure 3-13).

■ Among adults whose parents were high schoolgraduates or attained postsecondary education,prison inmates had lower average prose, docu-ment, and quantitative literacy than thoseadults who lived in households whose parentshad the same level of highest educationalattainment (figure 3-15).

Education and Job Training in Prison

Educational and vocational training programs are animportant component of prisons’ rehabilitative pur-pose. In general, inmates who participated in prisoneducation and training programs had higher averageliteracy than inmates who did not.

■ Forty-three percent of prison inmates hadobtained a high school diploma or a highschool equivalency certificate before the startof their current incarceration.An additional 19percent of prison inmates had earned theirhigh school equivalency certificate duringtheir current incarceration, and 5 percent wereenrolled in academic classes that might eventu-ally lead to a high school equivalency certifi-cate (figure 4-1).

■ Prison inmates with a high school diploma or ahigh school equivalency certificate had higheraverage prose, document, and quantitative literacythan prison inmates with lower levels of educa-tion. Inmates who earned their high schoolequivalency certificate during their current incar-ceration had higher average quantitative literacythan prison inmates who entered prison with ahigh school diploma or a high school equivalen-cy certificate (figure 4-3).

■ Twenty-nine percent of prison inmates hadparticipated in some sort of vocational training.However, more inmates reported being onwaiting lists for these programs than wereenrolled (figures 4-5 and 4-6).

■ Prison inmates who had participated in voca-tional training had higher average prose, docu-ment, and quantitative literacy than prisoninmates who had not participated in any sort ofvocational training program during their cur-rent incarceration (figure 4-9).

■ Prison inmates who had received either infor-mation technology (IT) certification or someother type of certification recognized by alicensing board or an industry or professionalassociation had higher average prose, document,and quantitative literacy than prison inmateswho did not have the same type of certification.However, prison inmates who had receivedeither type of certification had lower averagelevels of prose, document, and quantitative liter-acy than adults in the household populationwith similar certifications (figure 4-12).

Work and Literacy Experiences in Prison

The relationship between literacy and participation inprison activities is complex. Inmates who enter prisonwith higher literacy may be more likely to engage insome activities, such as using the library and comput-ers, reading, or even getting certain work assignments.

vi


Participating in any of these activities may helpinmates improve their literacy. In general, there was arelationship between literacy and participation inactivities in prison, such that inmates who participat-ed in activities that required some reading or writinghad average literacy that was either higher than or notmeasurably different from the average literacy ofinmates who did not participate in these activities.

■ In 2003, some 68 percent of prison inmates hada work assignment. Prison inmates with workassignments had higher average prose and quan-titative literacy than inmates who did not havework assignments (figure 5-1).

■ A higher percentage of inmates with Proficientand Intermediate prose literacy than prisoninmates with Below Basic prose literacy hadprison work assignments that required writingevery day (figure 5-6).

■ A higher percentage of inmates with Basic,Intermediate, and Proficient prose literacy thanwith Below Basic prose literacy used the library.Moreover, prison inmates who used the prisonlibrary had higher average prose literacy thanprison inmates who never used the library (fig-ure 5-9).

■ Prison inmates who used a computer for wordprocessing or for using a CD-ROM had high-er average document and quantitative literacythan inmates who never used a computer forthese things (figure 5-10).

■ A higher percentage of prison inmates withProficient than with Below Basic or Basic quanti-tative literacy used a spreadsheet program (fig-ure 5-13).

■ Prison inmates who read newspapers and mag-azines, books, or letters and notes had higheraverage prose and document literacy than prisoninmates who never read, regardless of the fre-quency with which they read. Additionally, a

higher percentage of inmates with Basic orIntermediate than with Below Basic prose literacyread newspapers and magazines, books, and let-ters and notes every day (figures 5-14 and 5-15).

Criminal History and Current Offense

On average, prison sentences were longer in 2003than in 1992. In both 1992 and 2003, the commis-sion of a violent crime was the most common reasonadults were incarcerated. There was a slight declinebetween 1992 and 2003 in the percentage of inmateswho were imprisoned because of property crimes.

Literacy is perhaps of most concern for inmates whoare nearing their expected date of release becausethey will need to find jobs outside of prison. In 2003,some 62 percent of inmates expected to be releasedwithin 2 years.

■ Average prose, document, and quantitative liter-acy was higher in 2003 than in 1992 for prisoninmates who expected to be incarcerated for 10years or longer (figure 6-3).

■ In 2003, there were no statistically significant dif-ferences in average prose, document, and quanti-tative literacy between inmates who expected tobe released within the next 2 years and inmateswith longer amounts of time remaining on theirsentences.However, between 1992 and 2003, thepercentage of inmates who expected to bereleased within the next 2 years and had BelowBasic prose and quantitative literacy did decrease(figures 6-5 and 6-6).

■ In 2003, average prose and quantitative literacywas higher among inmates who had previous-ly been sentenced to both probation and incar-ceration, and average document literacy washigher among inmates who had previouslybeen sentenced to probation only, than forinmates with the same criminal histories in1992 (figure 6-7).

vii

Executive Summary

Acknowledgments

The National Assessment of Adult Literacy(NAAL) is a complex project whose suc-cessful completion is due to the outstanding

work of countless individuals from many organiza-tions. We at the American Institutes for Research(AIR) are extremely grateful and appreciative forhaving the opportunity to work with so many tal-ented and dedicated individuals.We especially wantto thank the staff at the National Center forEducation Statistics who have supported the proj-ect, including Peggy Carr, Sheida White (NAALproject officer), Andrew Kolstad, Steven Gorman,William Tirre, and Arnold Goldstein.

We also appreciate the input we received fromreport reviewers including Bruce Taylor of theNCES Statistical Standards Program, and membersof the Education Statistics Services Institute staff:Yung Chun, Jaleh Soroui, Linda Schaefer, Jing ChenMatt Adams, Carianne Santagelo, Zeyu Xu, SteveHocker, and Steve Mistler.

John Linton, Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools,U.S. Department of Education, and CarolineHarlow, formerly with the Bureau of JusticStatistics, U.S. Department of Justice, played animportant role in the planning, design, and report-ing of the NAAL prison study.They also served asreviewers of this report. We are grateful for theirguidance and support.We also very much appreci-ate the support of the prison staff members andinmates who advised us on the design of this study

ix

and made many suggestions for improving the back-ground questionnaire.

Our colleagues at Westat, Inc.—including MarthaBerlin, Michelle Amsbary, Leyla Mohadjer, andJacquie Hogan—planned, developed, and imple-mented the sampling and weighting plan and alsoplanned and carried out the data collection.

Many staff members at AIR, in addition to the reportauthors, made substantial contributions to the prisonliteracy report. We would especially like to thank

Justin Baer, Eugene Johnson, Stephane Baldi, YingJin, Heather Block, Holly Baker, Elizabeth Moore,Rachel Greenberg, and Janan Musa.

Thousands of adults in both households and prisonsparticipated in the assessment. Their willingness tospend time answering the background questions andassessment items was essential to ensuring that mean-ingful data about the literacy of America’s adultscould be obtained.This study would not have beenpossible without their participation.

x


Contents

Page

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix

List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii

List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xviii

Chapter 1: Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1Defining and Measuring Literacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Interpreting Literacy Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Conducting the Survey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Interpretation of Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Organization of the Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Chapter 2: Changes in the Prison Population and Prisoners’ Literacy between 1992 and 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11Total Prison Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Race/Ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Highest Level of Educational Attainment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Language Spoken Before Starting School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Parents’ Highest Level of Educational Attainment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Chapter 3: Comparing the Prison and Household Populations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27Total Prison and Household Populations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Race/Ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

xi

CONTENTS

Page

Highest Level of Educational Attainment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Age. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Language Spoken Before Starting School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Parents’ Highest Level of Educational Attainment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Chapter 4: Education and Job Training in Prison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47Academic Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Vocational Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Skill Certification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Chapter 5: Work and Literacy Experiences in Prison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57Prison Work Assignments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Library Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Computer Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Reading Frequency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Chapter 6: Criminal History and Current Offense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71Type of Offense. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

Expected Length of Incarceration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Expected Date of Release . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

Previous Criminal History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81

Appendix A: Sample Assessment Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .83

Appendix B: Definitions of All Subpopulations and Background Variables Reported . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .93

Appendix C: Technical Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .99

Appendix D: Estimates and Standard Errors for Tables and Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .107

xii


xiii

Contents

List of Tables

Table Page

1-1. Correlations among the prose, document, and quantitative scales for the prison population: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

1-2. Correlations among the prose, document, and quantitative scales for the household population: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

1-3. Overview of the literacy levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2-1. Percentage of the adult prison population in selected groups: 1992 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

3-1. Percentage of the adult prison and household populations in selected groups: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

3-2. Average prose literacy scores of the adult prison and household populations, by race/ethnicity and age: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . 31

3-3. Average prose literacy scores of the adult prison and household populations, by race/ethnicity and date incarcerated: 2003. . 31

3-4. Percentage of the Black and White adult prison and household populations in each prose, document, and quantitative

literacy level, by highest educational attainment: 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

6-1. Percentage of the adult prison population in selected groups: 1992 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

C-1. Weighted and unweighted household response rate, by survey component: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

C-2. Weighted and unweighted prison response rate, by survey component: 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

D2-1. Estimates and standard errors for Table 2-1. Percentage of the adult prison population in selected groups: 1992 and 2003. . 108

D2-2. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 2-1. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult

prison population: 1992 and 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

D2-3. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 2-2. Percentage of the adult prison population in each prose, document, and

quantitative literacy level: 1992 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109


prison population, by race/ethnicity: 1992 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109


quantitative literacy level, by race/ethnicity: 1992 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110


prison population, by highest educational attainment: 1992 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110


quantitative literacy level, by highest educational attainment: 1992 and 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111


prison population, by gender: 1992 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111


quantitative literacy level, by gender: 1992 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112


prison population, by age: 1992 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112


quantitative literacy level, by age: 1992 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113


prison population, by language spoken before starting school: 1992 and 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

Table Page


quantitative literacy level, by language spoken before starting school: 1992 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114


prison population, by parents’ highest educational attainment: 1992 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114


quantitative literacy level, by parents’ highest educational attainment: 1992 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

D3-1. Estimates and standard errors for Table 3-1. Percentage of the adult prison and household populations in selected

groups: 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116


prison and household populations: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

D3-3. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 3-2. Percentage of the adult prison and household populations in each prose,

document, and quantitative literacy level: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117


prison and household populations, by race/ethnicity: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

D3-5. Estimates and standard errors for Table 3-2. Average prose literacy scores of the adult prison and household

populations, by race/ethnicity and age: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

D3-6. Estimates and standard errors for Table 3-3. Average prose literacy scores of the adult prison and household

populations, by race/ethnicity and date incarcerated: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118


document, and quantitative literacy level, by race/ethnicity: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119


prison and household populations, by highest educational attainment: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119


document, and quantitative literacy level, by highest educational attainment: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

D3-10. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 3-7. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the White

adult prison and household populations, by highest educational attainment: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

D3-11. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 3-8. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the Black

adult prison and household populations, by highest educational attainment: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

D3-12. Estimates and standard errors for Table 3-4. Percentage of the Black and White adult prison and household

populations in each prose, document, and quantitative literacy level, by highest educational attainment: 2003. . . . . . . . . 122


prison and household populations, by gender: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123


document, and quantitative literacy level, by gender: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123


prison and household populations, by age: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

D3-16. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 3-12. Percentage of the adult prison and household populations in each

prose, document, and quantitative literacy level, by age: 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124

xiv


Table Page


prison and household populations, by language spoken before starting school: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124


prose, document, and quantitative literacy level, by language spoken before starting school: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125


prison and household populations, by parents’ highest educational attainment: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125


prose, document, and quantitative literacy level, by parents’ highest educational attainment: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

D4-1. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 4-1. Percentage of the adult prison population, by GED/high school diploma

attainment: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

D4-2. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 4-2. Percentage of the adult prison population with a GED/high school

equivalency certificate or high school diploma, by expected date of release: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127


prison population, by GED/high school diploma attainment: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127


quantitative literacy level, by GED/high school diploma attainment: 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128

D4-5. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 4-5. Percentage of the adult prison population, by length of participation in

vocational training programs: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128

D4-6. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 4-6. Percentage of the adult prison population, by enrollment in vocational

training: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128

D4-7. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 4-7. Percentage of the adult prison population who participated in vocational

training during current incarceration, by expected date of release: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

D4-8. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 4-8. Percentage of the adult prison population participating in vocational

training who received selected types of instruction as part of the vocational training, by type of instruction: 2003 . . . . . . 129


prison population, by participation in vocational training: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

D4-10. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 4-10. Percentage of the adult prison population who participated in

vocational training, by prose, document, and quantitative literacy level: 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130

D4-11. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 4-11. Percentage of the adult prison and household populations who have

received skill certification: 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130


prison and household populations, by receipt of information technology skill certification: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131


prison and household populations, by receipt of other job-related skill certification: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132

D4-14. Estimates and standard errors for Figures 4-14. and 4-15. Percentage of the adult prison and household populations in

each prose, document, and quantitative literacy level, by receipt of information technology skill certification or other

job-related skill certification: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133


prison population, by current prison work assignment: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134

xv

Contents

Table Page

D5-2. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 5-2. Percentage of the adult prison population who had a current prison

work assignment, by prose, document, and quantitative literacy level: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134


prison population, by frequency of reading as part of current prison work assignment: 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135


prison population, by frequency of writing as part of current prison work assignment: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

D5-5. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 5-5. Percentage of the adult prison population who read as part of current

prison work assignment, by prose literacy level: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136

D5-6. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 5-6. Percentage of the adult prison population who wrote as part of current

prison work assignment, by prose and document literacy level: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136

D5-7. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 5-7. Percentage of the adult prison population who attempted to use the

prison library, by number of days it took to obtain access: 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137


prison population, by frequency of library use: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

D5-9. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 5-9. Percentage of the adult prison population who used the library, by prose

literacy level: 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138


prison population, by computer use for various tasks: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138

D5-11. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 5-11. Percentage of the adult prison population who wrote using a word

processing program, by prose literacy level: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

D5-12. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 5-12. Percentage of the adult prison population who looked up information

on a computer CD-ROM, by document literacy level: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

D5-13. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 5-13. Percentage of the adult prison population who used a computer

spreadsheet program, by quantitative literacy level: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

D5-14. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 5-14. Percentage of the adult prison and household populations who read

each of the following printed materials in English: newspapers or magazines, books, letters and notes, by frequency

of reading: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140

D5-15. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 5-15. Average prose and document literacy scores of the adult prison

population, by frequency of reading each of the following printed materials in English: newspapers or magazines,

books, letters and notes: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140

D5-16. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 5-16. Percentage of the adult prison population who read each of the

following printed materials in English: newspapers or magazines, books, letters and notes, by prose literacy level: 2003 . . 141

D6-1. Estimates and standard errors for Table 6-1. Percentage of the adult prison population in selected groups: 1992

and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142


prison population, by type of offense: 1992 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143


quantitative literacy level, by type of offense: 1992 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143

xvi


xvii

Contents

Table Page


prison population, by expected length of incarceration: 1992 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144


quantitative literacy level, by expected length of incarceration: 1992 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144


prison population, by expected date of release: 1992 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145


quantitative literacy level, by expected date of release: 1992 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145


prison population, by previous criminal history: 1992 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146


quantitative literacy level, by previous criminal history: 1992 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146

xviii


List of Figures

Figure Page

1-1. Difficulty of selected prose literacy tasks: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

1-2. Difficulty of selected document literacy tasks: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

1-3. Difficulty of selected quantitative literacy tasks: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

2-1. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison population: 1992 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

2-2. Percentage of the adult prison population in each prose, document, and quantitative literacy level: 1992 and 2003 . . . . . . 13

2-3. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison population, by race/ethnicity: 1992

and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

2-4. Percentage of the adult prison population in each prose, document, and quantitative literacy level, by race/ethnicity:

1992 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

2-5. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison population, by highest educational

attainment: 1992 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

2-6. Percentage of the adult prison population in each prose, document, and quantitative literacy level, by highest

educational attainment: 1992 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

2-7. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison population, by gender: 1992 and 2003. . . . . 18

2-8. Percentage of the adult prison population in each prose, document, and quantitative literacy level, by gender: 1992

and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

2-9. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison population, by age: 1992 and 2003. . . . . . . . 20

2-10. Percentage of the adult prison population in each prose, document, and quantitative literacy level, by age: 1992

and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

2-11. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison population, by language spoken before

starting school: 1992 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

2-12. Percentage of the adult prison population in each prose, document, and quantitative literacy level, by language spoken

before starting school: 1992 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

2-13. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison population, by parents’ highest


2-14. Percentage of the adult prison population in each prose, document, and quantitative literacy level, by parents’ highest


3-1. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison and household populations: 2003 . . . . . . . . . 29

3-2. Percentage of the adult prison and household populations in each prose, document, and quantitative literacy level:

2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

3-3. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison and household populations, by

race/ethnicity: 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

3-4. Percentage of the adult prison and household populations in each prose, document, and quantitative literacy level, by

race/ethnicity: 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

3-5. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison and household populations, by highest

educational attainment: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Figure Page

3-6. Percentage of the adult prison and household populations in each prose, document, and quantitative literacy level,

by highest educational attainment: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

3-7. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the White adult prison and household populations,

by highest educational attainment: 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

3-8. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the Black adult prison and household populations,

by highest educational attainment: 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

3-9. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison and household populations, by gender:

2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38


by gender: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

3-11. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison and household populations, by age: 2003 . . 39


by age: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

3-13. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison and household populations, by language

spoken before starting school: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41


by language spoken before starting school: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

3-15. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison and household populations, by parents’

highest educational attainment: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43


by parents’ highest educational attainment: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

4-1. Percentage of the adult prison population, by GED/high school diploma attainment: 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

4-2. Percentage of the adult prison population with a GED/high school equivalency certificate or high school diploma, by

expected date of release: 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

4-3. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison population, by GED/high school diploma

attainment: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

4-4. Percentage of the adult prison population in each prose, document, and quantitative literacy level, by GED/high school

diploma attainment: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

4-5. Percentage of the adult prison population, by length of participation in vocational training programs: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

4-6. Percentage of the adult prison population, by enrollment in vocational training: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

4-7. Percentage of the adult prison population who participated in vocational training during their current incarceration,

by expected date of release: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

4-8. Percentage of the adult prison population participating in vocational training who received selected types of instruction

as part of the vocational training, by type of instruction: 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

4-9. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison population, by participation in vocational

training: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

4-10. Percentage of the adult prison population who participated in vocational training, by prose, document, and

quantitative literacy level: 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

xix

Contents

Figure Page

4-11. Percentage of the adult prison and household populations who have received skill certification: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

4-12. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison and household populations, by receipt of

information technology skill certification: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

4-13. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison and household populations, by receipt

of other job-related skill certification: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

4-14. Percentage of the adult prison and household populations in each quantitative literacy level, by receipt of information

technology skill certification: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

4-15. Percentage of the adult prison and household populations in each quantitative literacy level, by receipt of other

job-related skill certification: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

5-1. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison population, by current prison work

assignment: 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

5-2. Percentage of the adult prison population who had a current prison work assignment, by prose, document, and

quantitative literacy level: 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

5-3. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison population, by frequency of reading as

part of current prison work assignment: 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

5-4. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison population, by frequency of writing as

part of current prison work assignment: 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

5-5. Percentage of the adult prison population who read as part of current prison work assignment, by prose literacy level:

2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

5-6. Percentage of the adult prison population who wrote as part of current prison work assignment, by prose and

document literacy level: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

5-7. Percentage of the adult prison population who attempted to use the prison library, by number of days it took to obtain

access: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

5-8. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison population, by frequency of library use:

2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

5-9. Percentage of the adult prison population who used the library, by prose literacy level: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

5-10. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison population, by computer use for various

tasks: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

5-11. Percentage of the adult prison population who wrote using a word processing program, by prose literacy level: 2003 . . . . 65

5-12. Percentage of the adult prison population who looked up information on a computer CD-ROM, by document literacy

level: 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

5-13. Percentage of the adult prison population who used a computer spreadsheet program, by quantitative literacy level:

2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

5-14. Percentage of the adult prison and household populations who read each of the following printed materials in English:

newspapers or magazines, books, letters and notes, by frequency of reading: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

5-15. Average prose and document literacy scores of the adult prison population, by frequency of reading each of the

following printed materials in English: newspapers or magazines, books, letters and notes: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

xx


Figure Page

5-16. Percentage of the adult prison population who read each of the following printed materials in English: newspapers or

magazines, books, letters and notes, by prose literacy level: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

6-1. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison population, by type of offense: 1992

and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

6-2. Percentage of the adult prison population in each prose, document, and quantitative literacy level, by type of offense:

1992 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

6-3. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison population, by expected length of

incarceration: 1992 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

6-4. Percentage of the adult prison population in each prose, document, and quantitative literacy level, by expected length

of incarceration: 1992 and 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

6-5. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison population, by expected date of release:

1992 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

6-6. Percentage of the adult prison population in each prose, document, and quantitative literacy level, by expected date of

release: 1992 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

6-7. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison population, by previous criminal history:

1992 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

6-8. Percentage of the adult prison population in each prose literacy level, by previous criminal history: 1992 and 2003 . . . . . . 80

xxi

Contents

Introduction

The skills and credentials that are acquiredthrough formal education are importanttools for navigating everyday life in the

United States. Adults with low levels of educationand literacy are more likely than adults with higheducation and literacy levels to be unemployed orto have incomes that put them below the povertylevel (Kutner et al. 2007). Adults who have notobtained a high school diploma or any postsec-ondary education are also more likely to be incar-cerated than adults with higher levels of education(Harlow 2003).

The 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacyassessed the English literacy of incarcerated adultsin the United States for the first time since 1992.The assessment was administered to approximately1,200 inmates in state and federal prisons, as well asto approximately 18,000 adults living in house-holds.The original motivation for the prison sam-ple was to ensure the assessment was representativeof the entire population of the United States. Forthe population estimates presented in other reports,the prison and household samples are combined orresults are reported for the household populationonly.This report presents findings separately for theprison adult literacy assessment.The report presentsanalyses that compare the literacy of the U.S. prisonpopulation in 2003 with the literacy of the prisonpopulation in 1992. It also presents analyses thatcompare the literacy of the prison and householdpopulations.

1

Defining and Measuring

Literacy

Interpreting Literacy Results

Conducting the Survey

Interpretation of Results

Organization of the Report

1CHAPTER ONE

Defining and Measuring Literacy

Defining Literacy

Unlike indirect measures of literacy—which rely onself-reports and other subjective evaluations of liter-acy and education—the 1992 and 2003 adult litera-cy assessments measured literacy directly by tasksrepresenting a range of literacy activities that adultsare likely to face in their daily lives.

The literacy tasks in the assessment were drawn fromactual texts and documents, which were either usedin their original format or reproduced in the assess-ment booklets. Each question appeared before thematerials needed to answer it, thus encouragingrespondents to read with purpose.

Respondents could correctly answer many assess-ment questions by skimming the text or documentfor the information necessary to perform a given lit-eracy task.All tasks were open-ended.

The 2003 adult literacy assessment covered the samecontent of the 1992 assessment, and both assessmentsused the same definition of literacy:

Using printed and written information to func-

tion in society, to achieve one’s goals, and to

develop one’s knowledge and potential.

The definition implies that literacy goes beyond simplydecoding and comprehending text.A central feature ofthe definition is that literacy is related to achieving anobjective and adults often read for a purpose.

Measuring Literacy

As in 1992, three literacy scales—prose literacy, doc-ument literacy, and quantitative literacy—were usedin the 2003 assessment:

■ Prose literacy.The knowledge and skills needed toperform prose tasks (i.e., to search, comprehend,

and use information from continuous texts).Prose examples include editorials, news stories,brochures, and instructional materials. Prosetexts can be further broken down as expository,narrative, procedural, or persuasive.

■ Document literacy. The knowledge and skillsneeded to perform document tasks (i.e., tosearch, comprehend, and use information fromnoncontinuous texts in various formats).Document examples include job applications,payroll forms, transportation schedules, maps,tables, and drug or food labels.

■ Quantitative literacy. The knowledge and skillsrequired to perform quantitative tasks (i.e., toidentify and perform computations, eitheralone or sequentially, using numbers embeddedin printed materials). Examples include balanc-ing a checkbook, figuring out a tip, completingan order form, or determining the amount ofinterest on a loan from an advertisement.

Table 1-1 shows the correlations among the prose,document, and quantitative scales for the prison pop-ulation in 2003, and table 1-2 shows the same corre-lations for the household population in 2003.All thecorrelations for the prison population are between.78 and .87; all the correlations for the householdpopulation are between .86 and .89. In chapter 12 ofthe Technical Report and Data File User’s Manual for the1992 National Adult Literacy Survey, Rock and

2


Table 1-1. Correlations among the prose, document,

and quantitative scales for the prison

population: 2003

Prose Document Quantitative

Prose 1.0 .83 .78

Document .83 1.0 .87

Quantitative .78 .87 1.0

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for

Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Yamamoto (2001) examined the correlations amongthe three scales and concluded that even though thescales were highly related, there were still group dif-ferences across the scales, indicating that the scalesdid not all measure the same construct.

Additional information on the construction of theliteracy scales is presented in Kutner et al. (2007).

Background Questionnaire

The 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacyprison background questionnaire was used to collectdemographic data on inmates and to provide contex-tual data on their experiences in prison that wererelated to literacy, including participation in classes,job training, and prison work assignments.A primarygoal of the assessment was to measure literacy trendsbetween 1992 and 2003, so many of the questions onthe 2003 background questionnaire were identical toquestions on the 1992 background questionnaire.The 2003 background questionnaire also includedsome new questions that were added in response toinput from stakeholders and users of the 1992 data.

A separate background questionnaire was developed forthe household study.The demographic questions wereidentical on the prison and household questionnaires.

Interpreting Literacy Results

The Committee on Performance Levels for AdultLiteracy, appointed by National Research Council’s

Board on Testing and Assessment (BOTA), recom-mended a set of performance levels for the 2003assessment (Hauser et al. 2005). Drawing on theirrecommendations, the U.S. Department ofEducation decided to report the assessment resultsusing four literacy levels for each scale. Table 1-3summarizes the knowledge, skills, and capabilitiesthat adults needed to demonstrate to be classifiedinto one of the four levels. Figures 1-1, 1-2, and 1-3show the types of tasks that map the different levelson the prose, document, and quantitative scales.These levels are different from the levels used in1992.The 1992 data were reanalyzed using the newlevels, and those results are included in this report.

BOTA’s Committee on Performance Levels forAdult Literacy also recommended reporting the2003 results by using a separate category: nonliteratein English.Adults were considered to be nonliteratein English if they were unable to complete a mini-mum number of simple literacy questions or if theywere unable to communicate in English or Spanish.Adults who were classified as nonliterate in Englishbecause they could not complete a minimum num-ber of simple literacy questions were generally ableto complete the background questionnaire, whichwas administered orally in either English or Spanish;for reporting purposes, they were included in theBelow Basic literacy level. Adults who were classifiedas nonliterate in English because they were unableto communicate in either English or Spanish couldnot complete the background questionnaire; theyare not included in the analyses in this report thatrely on background data. Adults who could not betested because of a cognitive or mental disability arealso not included in the analyses in this report, butin the absence of any information about their liter-acy abilities, they are not considered to be nonliter-ate in English.

3

Chapter 1: Introduction

Table 1-2. Correlations among the prose, document,

and quantitative scales for the household

population: 2003


Prose 1.0 .86 .88

Document .86 1.0 .89

Quantitative .88 .89 1.0


Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Conducting the Survey6

The 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacyincluded two samples: (1) adults ages 16 and olderliving in households and (2) inmates ages 16 andolder in federal and state prisons. The householdsample is representative of the 21,020,000 adults inhouseholds, and the prison sample is representative of

the 1,380,000 adults in prison in 2003.The samplingframe for households was based on the 2000 Censusand the sampling frame for prisons was a list of allfederal and state prisons provided by the Bureau ofJustice Statistics. Each sample was weighted to repre-sent its share of the total population of the UnitedStates. Household data collection was conductedfrom March 2003 through February 2004; prisondata collection was conducted from March throughJuly 2004.Throughout this report, the 2003–04 sur-vey is referred to as the 2003 survey to simplify the

4


Table 1-3. Overview of the literacy levels

Level and definition Key abilities associated with level

Below Basic indicates no more than themost simple and concrete literacy skills.

Score ranges for Below Basic:Prose: 0–209Document: 0–204Quantitative: 0–234

Basic indicates skills necessary to performsimple and everyday literacy activities.

Score ranges for Basic:Prose: 210–264Document: 205–249Quantitative: 235–289

Intermediate indicates skills necessary toperform moderately challenging literacyactivities.

Score ranges for Intermediate:Prose: 265–339Document: 250–334Quantitative: 290–349

Proficient indicates skills necessary to per-form more complex and challenging literacyactivities.

Score ranges for Proficient:Prose: 340–500Document: 335–500Quantitative: 350–500

Adults at the Below Basic level range from being nonliterate in English to havingthe abilities listed below:

■ locating easily identifiable information in short, commonplace prose texts

■ locating easily identifiable information and following written instructions insimple documents (e.g., charts or forms)

■ locating numbers and using them to perform simple quantitative operations(primarily addition) when the mathematical information is very concrete andfamiliar

■ reading and understanding information in short, commonplace prose texts

■ reading and understanding information in simple documents

■ locating easily identifiable quantitative information and using it to solve sim-ple, one-step problems when the arithmetic operation is specified or easilyinferred

■ reading and understanding moderately dense, less commonplace prose textsas well as summarizing, making simple inferences, determining cause andeffect, and recognizing the author’s purpose

■ locating information in dense, complex documents and making simple infer-ences about the information

■ locating less familiar quantitative information and using it to solve problemswhen the arithmetic operation is not specified or easily inferred

■ reading lengthy, complex, abstract prose texts as well as synthesizing infor-mation and making complex inferences

■ integrating, synthesizing, and analyzing multiple pieces of information locatedin complex documents

■ locating more abstract quantitative information and using it to solve multi-step problems when the arithmetic operations are not easily inferred and theproblems are more complex

NOTE: Although the literacy levels share common names with the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) levels, they do not correspond to the NAEP levels.

SOURCE: Hauser, R.M, Edley, C.F. Jr., Koenig, J.A., and Elliott, S.W. (Eds.). (2005). Measuring Literacy: Performance Levels for Adults, Interim Report.Washington, DC: National Academies Press; White, S. and Dillow, S.

(2005). Key Concepts and Features of the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NCES 2006-471). U.S. Department of Education.Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

6Nonresponse bias analyses are discussed on page 102 of this report.All percentages in this section are weighted. For unweighted per-centages, see tables C-1 and C-2 in appendix C.

presentation, and the 1992–93 survey is referred to asthe 1992 survey. Literacy changes very slowly amongadults, so we would not expect to find significant dif-ference between 2003 and 2004.7

For the prison sample, 97 percent (weighted) of pris-ons that were selected for the study agreed to partic-ipate, and the background questionnaire responserate among prison inmates was 91 percent (weight-ed).The final prison sample response rate was 88 per-cent (weighted). For the household sample, thescreener response rate was 82 percent (weighted) and

5


Figure 1-1. Difficulty of selected prose literacy tasks: 2003

Proficient 340–500

Intermediate265–339

Basic210–264

Below Basic0–209

Prose literacy scale

0

150

200

450

250

300

400

350

500

361 Evaluate information to determine which legal document is applicable to a specific healthcare situation.

403 Find the information required to define a medical term by searching through a complex document.

409 Infer the purpose of an event described in a magazine article.

332 Compare two different systems of government, using information in a complex text that is not organized with section headers or other organizing devices.

331 List two facts from a business magazine article that explain why a marketer quoted in the article has a particular opinion.

266 Explain why the author of a first-person narrative chose a particular activity instead of an alternative activity.

254 Find information in a pamphlet for prospective jurors that explains how citizens were selected for the jury pool.

199 Find information in a short, simple prose passage.

345 Compare viewpoints in two editorials with contrasting interpretations of scientific and economic evidence.

304 Infer the meaning of a metaphor in a poem.

245 Find information in a newspaper article that explains how students who participate in a school program benefit from the program.

190 Determine how long an event lasted, based on information in a short newspaper article.

345 Compare and contrast the meaning of metaphors in a poem.

284 Summarize the work experience required for a specific job, based on information in a newspaper job advertisement.

241 Explain the meaning of a metaphor used in a narrative.

213 Find, in a long narrative passage, the name of the person who performed a particular action.

183 Identify how often a person should have a specified medical test, based on information in a clearly written pamphlet.

161 Identify what it is permissible to drink before a medical test, based on a short set of instructions.

NOTE:The position of a question on the scale represents the average scale score attained by adults who had a 67 percent probability of successfully answering the question. Only selected questions are presented.

Scale score ranges for performance levels are referenced on the figure.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

7 The 1992 adult literacy prison data collection took place in 1993,but results for that survey have been reported using the date of 1992.

the background questionnaire response rate was 76 percent (weighted). The final household sampleresponse rate was 62 percent (weighted).

Prison interviews usually took place in a classroom orlibrary in the prison; household interviews were con-ducted in respondents’ homes. Whenever possible,

interviewers administered the background question-naire and assessment in a private setting. Assessmentswere administered one-on-one using a computer-assisted personal interviewing system (CAPI) pro-grammed into laptop computers. Respondents wereencouraged to use whatever aids they normally used


Figure 1-2. Difficulty of selected document literacy tasks: 2003

Proficient 335–500


Basic205–249

Below Basic0–204

Document literacy scale

0

150

100

200

250

300

400

350

500

228 Determine and categorize a person’s body mass index (BMI) given the person’s height and weight, a graph that can be used to determine BMI based on height and weight, and a table that categorizes BMI ranges.

206 Locate the intersection of two streets on a clearly labeled map.

249 Summarize what the articles in a specified section of a magazine are about, using information in the magazine’s table of contents.

239 Find a table in an almanac with information on a specified topic.

191 Find the phone number to call to get directions to a job fair, based on information presented in a newspaper job advertisement.

158 Find the percentage of a market a particular retailer had in 1992, based on information presented in a bar graph.

117 Circle the date of a medical appointment on a hospital appointment slip.

355 Apply information given in a text to graph a trend.

372 Contrast financial information presented in a table regarding the differences between various types of credit cards.

388 Interpret survey data presented in a nested table.

297 Find the age range during which children should received a particular vaccine, using a chart that shows all the childhood vaccines and the ages children should receive them.

280 Follow directions, using a clearly labeled map.

269 Find the time a television program ends, using a newspaper television schedule that lists similar programs showing at different times on different channels.

261 Enter product numbers for office supplies on an order form, using information from a page in an office supplies catalog.




6

when reading and performing quantitative tasks, includ-ing eyeglasses,magnifying glasses, rulers, and calculators.

The interviewers provided calculators to respondentswho wanted to use one and did not have their own.


7

Figure 1-3. Difficulty of selected quantitative literacy tasks: 2003

Proficient 350 –500


Basic235–289

Below Basic0–234

Quantitative literacy scale

0

175

125

225

275

325

475

375

425

500

237 Calculate the cost of a sandwich and salad, using prices from a menu.

232 Compare two prices by identifying the appropriate numbers and subtracting.

257 Calculate the weekly salary for a job, based on hourly wages listed in a job advertisement.

245 Locate two numbers in a bar graph and calculate the difference between them.

217 Calculate the price difference between two appliances, using information in a table that includes price and other information about the appliances.

178 Calculate the change from a $20 bill after paying the amount on a receipt.

138 Add two numbers to complete an ATM deposit slip.

356 Calculate the yearly cost of a specified amount of life insurance, using a table that gives cost by month for each $1,000 of coverage.

291 Determine what time a person can take a prescription medication, based on information on the prescription drug label that relates timing of medication to eating.

309 Determine whether a car has enough gasoline to get to the next gas station, based on a graphic of the car’s fuel gauge, a sign stating the miles to the next gas station, and information given in the question about the car’s fuel use.

328 Calculate the cost of raising a child for a year in a family with a specified income, based on a newspaper article that provides the percentage of a typical family’s budget that goes toward raising children.

404 Determine the number of units of flooring required to cover the floor in a room, when the area of the room is not evenly divisible by the units in which the flooring is sold.

470 Calculate an employee's share of health insurance costs for a year, using a table that shows how the employee's monthly cost varies with income and family size.

284 Perform a two-step calculation to find the cost of three baseball tickets, using an order form that gives the price of one ticket and the postage and handling charge.

301 Calculate the total cost of ordering office supplies, using a page from an office supplies catalog and an order form.




One percent of adults in the prison sample and 3percent of adults in the household sample wereunable to participate in the assessment because theycould not communicate in either English or Spanishor because they had a mental disability that prevent-ed them from being tested. Literacy scores for theseadults could not be estimated, and they are notincluded in the results presented in this report.

Additional information on sampling, response rates,and data collection procedures is in appendix C.

Interpretation of Results

The adult literacy scales make it possible to examinerelationships between adults’ literacy and various self-reported background factors. However, a relationshipthat exists between literacy and another variable doesnot reveal its underlying cause, which may be influ-enced by a number of other variables. Similarly, theassessment does not reflect the influence of unmea-sured variables.The results are most useful when theyare considered in combination with other knowl-edge about the adult population and literacy levels inthe United States, such as trends in populationdemographics and societal demands and expecta-tions. Some of the changes in population demo-graphics are discussed in chapter 2 of this report.

The statistics presented in this report are estimates ofperformance based on a sample of respondents,rather than the values that could be calculated ifevery person in the nation answered every questionon the assessment. Estimates of performance of thepopulation and groups within the population werecalculated by using sampling weights to account forthe fact that the probabilities of selection were notidentical for all respondents. Information about theuncertainty of each statistic that takes into accountthe complex sample design was estimated by usingTaylor series procedures to estimate standard errors(Binder 1983).

The analyses in this report examine differences relat-ed to literacy based on self-reported backgroundcharacteristics among groups in 2003, as well aschanges within groups between 1992 and 2003, byusing standard t tests to determine statistical signifi-cance. Statistical significance is reported at p < .05.Differences between averages or percentages that arestatistically significant are discussed by using compar-ative terms such as higher or lower. Differences that arenot statistically significant either are not discussed orare referred to as “not statistically significant.”

Because the sample size was small for some groups inthe prison population, such as women and Hispanics,standard errors were larger for estimates relating tothose groups and differences that look large were notnecessarily statistically significant.The fact that a dif-ference was not statistically significant does not nec-essarily mean there was no difference. Rather, itmeans we cannot be 95 percent certain that the dif-ferences we see in the sample would hold for thepopulation as a whole.

For most of the analyses in this report, results are pre-sented for all three scales: prose, document, and quan-titative. However, for some of the analyses for whichone or two of the scales were more conceptuallyrelated to the background variable being discussedthan were others, results are presented for a subset ofthe scales only.

Detailed tables with estimates and standard errors forall tables and figures in this report are in appendix D.Appendix C includes more information about theweights used for the sample and the procedures usedto estimate standard errors and statistical significance.

Organization of the Report

Chapter 2 of the report presents the prose, document,and quantitative literacy of the prison population ofthe United States as a whole and discusses how the

8


literacy of the prison population changed between1992 and 2003.The chapter also examines how liter-acy varies across groups of prison inmates with differ-ent characteristics, including race/ethnicity, gender,educational attainment, age, language spoken beforestarting school, and parents’ educational attainment.

Chapter 3 compares the literacy of adults in theprison and household populations in 2003. In addi-tion to comparing the populations as a whole, thechapter examines how literacy differs between adultsin the prison and household populations in groupswith selected characteristics, including race/ethnici-ty, gender, educational attainment, age, language spo-ken before starting school, and parents’ educationalattainment.

Chapter 4 examines the relationship between litera-cy and education and job training, including tradi-tional academic education, vocational education, andskill certification.

Chapter 5 discusses the relationship between literacyand experiences in prison other than education.Topics in chapter 5 are prison work assignments,library use, computer use, and reading frequency.

Chapter 6 looks at the relationship between literacy,criminal history, and current offense.The results pre-sented in chapter 6 compare how the relationshipbetween literacy, type of offense, expected length ofincarceration, expected date of release, and previouscriminal history has changed since 1992.

9


Changes in the Prison Population and Prisoners’ Literacy Between 1992 and 2003

Approximately 1.4 million adults were incar-cerated in state or federal prisons in 2003,half a million more than were incarcerated

in prisons 10 years earlier, an increase of approxi-mately 55 percent (Glaze and Palla 2005; Snell1995). The incarceration rate per 100,000 popula-tion increased from 332 in 1992 to 487 in 2003(Bureau of Justice Statistics 1997;Harrison and Beck2005). In addition to being larger, the prison popu-lation was somewhat older in 2003 than in 1992: in2003, some 32 percent of prison inmates were age40 or older, compared with 19 percent in 1992(table 2-1). A lower percentage of prison inmatesended their education before completing highschool in 2003 than in 1992. In 2003, some 9 per-cent of prison inmates dropped out of school beforestarting high school and 28 percent started highschool but did not obtain a diploma or a GeneralEducational Development (GED) credential/highschool equivalency certificate, compared with 13percent and 36 percent, respectively, in 1992. Theparents of prison inmates were also better educatedin 2003 than in 1992. In 2003, some 33 percent ofprison inmates had parents who had completed atleast some postsecondary education, compared with25 percent in 1992.

11

Total Prison Population

Race/Ethnicity

Highest Level of Educational

Attainment

Gender

Age

Language Spoken Before

Starting School

Parents’ Highest Level of

Educational Attainment

Summary

2CHAPTER TWO

The analyses in this chapter examine how the litera-cy levels of prison inmates changed between 1992and 2003.The chapter starts with an examination ofthe change in literacy between 1992 and 2003among the entire prison population. Because the2003 prison population is larger than the prison pop-ulation in 1992 and is different in terms of age andeducational background, just looking at differencesin literacy among all prison inmates can obscureimportant changes within different groups in theprison population. Therefore, the majority of thechapter is focused on analyses that examine the liter-acy of different groups within the prison populationcharacterized by demographic category, educationalattainment, and language background.

When interpreting the results presented in this chap-ter, it is important to remember that the populationof prison inmates changes every year because somepeople are released after serving their sentences andother people are newly incarcerated. This is not alongitudinal study. Therefore, it is not possible totrack the performance of individual prison inmatesover time by using the results of this study. If theresults presented in this chapter show that average lit-eracy changed between 1992 and 2003 among a par-ticular group of prison inmates, it should not beinterpreted as meaning that the literacy of adults whowere incarcerated in 1992 changed.8

12


Table 2-1. Percentage of the adult prison popula-

tion in selected groups: 1992 and 2003

Characteristic 1992 2003

Race/ethnicity

White 35 32

Black 45 46

Hispanic 16 18

Other 3 5

Gender

Male 94 94

Female 6 6

Highest educational attainment

Less than high school 13 9*

Some high school 36 28*

GED/high school equivalency 17 28*

High school graduate 14 13

Postsecondary 20 22

Age

16–24 23 16*

25–39 58 52*

40+ 19 32*

Language spoken before starting school

English only 85 85

English and other 6 6

Other only 9 9

Parents’ highest educational attainment

Less than high school 19 13*

Some high school 16 13

GED/high school equivalency/

high school graduate 39 41

Postsecondary 25 33*

*Significantly different from 1992.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Adults are defined as people 16 years of

age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or

cognitive or mental disabilities (3 percent in 1992 and 1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this

table. In 1992, respondents were allowed to identify only one race but could identify “other” as their

race. In 2003, respondents were allowed to identify multiple races but could not choose “other” as

their race.The “Other” category includes Asians, Pacific Islanders, Native Hawaiians, American

Indians, and Alaska Natives. In 2003, the “Other” category also includes adults who said they were

multi-racial; in 1992, it also includes adults who chose “other” as their race. All adults of Hispanic

origin are classified as Hispanic, regardless of race. Black includes African American, and Hispanic

includes Latino. Postsecondary includes any education beyond high school.


Education Statistics, 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey and 2003 National Assessment of Adult

Literacy.

8 The study design did not permit the separate examination of theliteracy of inmates who were incarcerated for the entire 11-yeartime period between the 1992 and 2003 assessments.

Total Prison Population

The average prose and quantitative literacy of theprison population was higher in 2003 than in 1992(figure 2-1). On all three scales, a lower percentage ofprison inmates had Below Basic literacy and a higherpercentage of prison inmates had Intermediate literacyin 2003 than in 1992 (figure 2-2). Because of theincrease in the size of the prison population, thenumber of prison inmates with Below Basic prose lit-eracy was approximately 200,000 in both years,

despite the decline in the percentage of incarceratedadults with Below Basic prose literacy from 22 to 16percent.

Nonliterate in English

In 2003, 3 percent of the prison population (42,000adults) was considered to be nonliterate in Englisheither because the inmates did poorly on the easiesttest questions or because language barriers kept themfrom taking the test.9

13

Chapter 2: Changes in the Prison Population and Prisoners’ Literacy between 1992 and 2003

Figure 2-1. Average prose, document, and quantita-

tive literacy scores of the adult prison

population: 1992 and 2003

248257*

243249

234

249*

1992 2003

0

150

200

250

Average score

300

350

500


Literacy scale


NOTE: Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not

be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (3 percent in 1992 and 1

percent in 2003) are excluded from this figure.



Literacy.

Figure 2-2. Percentage of the adult prison popula-

tion in each prose, document, and quan-

titative literacy level: 1992 and 2003

2003

1992

22

16* 40 41* 3

22 33 42 3

15* 35 48* 2

50 32 16 3

39* 39* 20* 22003

1992

2003

1992

Quantitative

Document

Prose

0 20 40 60 80 1006080 40 20

Percent Below Basic Percent Basic and above

Literacy scale and year

40 35 3

Below Basic Basic Intermediate Proficient


NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Adults are defined as people 16 years of

age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or

cognitive or mental disabilities (3 percent in 1992 and 1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this

figure.



Literacy.

9 The design of the 1992 assessment did not allow the estimation ofthe size of the nonliterate-in-English population.

Race/Ethnicity

Average prose, document, and quantitative literacyincreased for Black prison inmates between 1992 and2003 (figure 2-3). Average quantitative literacy alsoincreased for Hispanic inmates.There were no statis-tically significant changes in average literacy on anyof the three scales for White prison inmates.The gapin document literacy scores between White andBlack inmates was smaller in 2003 than in 1992.

Between 1992 and 2003, the percentage of Blackprison inmates with Below Basic literacy declinedfrom 25 to 15 percent on the prose scale, from 28 to19 percent on the document scale, and from 63 to 49percent on the quantitative scale (figure 2-4).A lower

percentage of Hispanic prison inmates had BelowBasic document and quantitative literacy in 2003than in 1992: 36 percent had Below Basic documentliteracy and 64 percent had Below Basic quantitativeliteracy in 1992, compared with 23 percent and 53percent in 2003, respectively (figure 2-4).Adults withBelow Basic literacy can do no more than the mostsimple literacy activities.

A comparison across racial/ethnic groups in 2003shows that White prison inmates had higher averageprose, document, and quantitative literacy than Blackand Hispanic inmates (figure 2-3). Black prisoninmates had higher average document literacy thanHispanic inmates.

14


Figure 2-3. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison population, by

race/ethnicity: 1992 and 2003

White Black Hispanic Other White Black Hispanic Other White Black Hispanic Other

267274

241252*

224232

248262

268 265

229240*

224236

256 255266

274

216

237*

212

231*

251 254

1992 2003


0

150

200

250

Average score

300

350

500

Race/ethnicity


NOTE: Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (3 percent in 1992 and 1 percent in

2003) are excluded from this figure. In 1992, respondents were allowed to identify only one race but could identify “other” as their race. In 2003, respondents were allowed to identify multiple races but could not

choose “other” as their race.The “Other” category includes Asians, Pacific Islanders, Native Hawaiians, American Indians, and Alaska Natives. In 2003, the “Other” category also includes adults who said they were

multi-racial; in 1992, it also includes adults who chose “other” as their race. All adults of Hispanic origin are classified as Hispanic, regardless of race. Black includes African American, and Hispanic includes Latino.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey and 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

15


Figure 2-4. Percentage of the adult prison population in each prose, document, and quantitative literacy level,

by race/ethnicity: 1992 and 2003

11

6

28

19*

36

23*

13

14

24 57 8

27 64 3*

41 31

40 40 1

31 31 2

36 39 2

33 48 6

31 52 42003

1992 Other

2003

1992 Hispanic

2003

1992 Black

2003

1992 White

Race/ethnicity and year

0 20 40 60 80 1006080 40 20


1

Document

12

9

25

15*

38

35

24

11

35 47 6

32 52 7

43 30 1

47 37 1

39 22 1

35 28 2

39 33 4

41 46 32003

1992 Other

2003

1992 Hispanic

2003

1992 Black

2003

1992 White

0 20 40 60 80 1006080 40 20



Prose

27

19

63

49*

64

53*

41

34

39 28 6

45 33 4

28 9

37* 13 1

26 9 1

32 13 2

31 19 9

41 24 12003

1992 Other

2003

1992 Hispanic

2003

1992 Black

2003

1992 White


0 20 40 60 80 1006080 40 20



1

Quantitative


NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or men-

tal disabilities (3 percent in 1992 and 1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this figure. In 1992, respondents were allowed to identify only one race but could identify “other” as their race. In 2003, respondents were

allowed to identify multiple races but could not choose “other” as their race.The “Other” category includes Asians, Pacific Islanders, Native Hawaiians, American Indians, and Alaska Natives. In 2003, the “Other” cate-

gory also includes adults who said they were multi-racial; in 1992, it also includes adults who chose “other” as their race. All adults of Hispanic origin are classified as Hispanic, regardless of race. Black includes

African American, and Hispanic includes Latino.


16


Highest Level of Educational Attainment

Average document literacy declined between 1992and 2003 for inmates with postsecondary education(figure 2-5).There were no other statistically signifi-cant changes in average prose, document, and quanti-tative literacy for inmates at any other level of educa-tional attainment.Within educational attainment cat-egories, there were no statistically significant changesin the distribution of prison inmates across the litera-cy levels on any of the three scales (figure 2-6).

In 2003, inmates with less than a high school educa-tion had lower average prose and quantitative literacythan inmates with some high school; inmates with

some high school had lower average prose and quan-titative literacy than inmates who had received a highschool diploma or a GED/high school equivalencycertificate; and inmates who had received a highschool diploma or a GED/high school equivalencycertificate had lower average prose and document lit-eracy than inmates who had postsecondary education(figure 2-5). On the document scale, incarceratedadults’ average literacy increased with each increasinglevel of education up to a high school diploma or aGED/high school equivalency certificate.On all threescales, prison inmates with a high school diploma hadlower average literacy than inmates with a GED/highschool equivalency certificate.

Figure 2-5. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison population, by highest

educational attainment: 1992 and 2003

205199

228235

270 270

251264

286 282

195 192

229 231

255 260250 255

279267*

184

198

215223

259 263

235247

277 280

1992 2003

0

150

200

250

Average score

300

350

500


Educational attainment

Less than high

school

Some high

school

GED/high school

equivalency

High school

graduate

Post-secondary

Less than high

school

Some high

school

GED/high school

equivalency

High school

graduate

Post-secondary

Less than high

school

Some high

school

GED/high school

equivalency

High school

graduate

Post-secondary



2003) are excluded from this figure. Postsecondary includes any education beyond high school.


17



by highest educational attainment: 1992 and 2003

34 55 1

0 20 40 60 80 1006080 40 20


55

56

28

22

9

5

19

15

5

5

29 15 1

30 14

41 31

48 30

#

#

33 60 2

31 46 4

28 54 3

21 63 11

27 65 32003

1992

2003

1992

2003

1992

2003

1992

2003

1992

Educational attainment and year

Less than high school

Some high school

GED/high school equivalency

High school graduate

Postsecondary

1

Document

50

58

33

25

4

5

19

14

5

5

35 15

31 11

47 19

54 21

#

#

#

40 54 2

38 54 3

39 40 2

34 47 5

26 58 11

28 58 82003

1992

2003

1992

2003

1992

2003

1992

2003

1992

0 20 40 60 80 1006080 40 20




Some high school



Postsecondary

1

Prose

75

74

64

62

29

23

49

41

21

15

16 7 1

21 5

29 7

30 8

#

#

47 22 2

53 23 1

33 16 2

34 22 3

38 33 8

44 36 5

0 20 40 60 80 1006080 40 20


2003

1992

2003

1992

2003

1992

2003

1992

2003

1992



Some high school



Postsecondary


1

Quantitative

# Rounds to zero.


tal disabilities (3 percent in 1992 and 1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this figure. Postsecondary includes any education beyond high school.


Gender

The average prose and quantitative literacy of incar-cerated men increased between 1992 and 2003 (figure2-7).There were no statistically significant changes inthe average literacy of incarcerated women on any ofthe three scales.10

Between 1992 and 2003, the percentage of maleinmates with Below Basic literacy declined from 22 to17 percent on the prose scale, from 22 to 15 percenton the document scale, and from 49 to 39 percent onthe quantitative scale (figure 2-8).

There were no statistically significant differences inaverage prose, document, and quantitative literacybetween male and female prison inmates in 2003(figure 2-7).

18


Figure 2-7. Average prose, document, and quantita-

tive literacy scores of the adult prison

population, by gender: 1992 and 2003

249257*

244

259

243249

242249

235

250*

221

237

1992 2003

0

150

200

250

Average score

300

350

500 Prose Document Quantitative

Male FemaleMale Female Male Female

Gender


NOTE: Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not

be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (3 percent in 1992 and 1

percent in 2003) are excluded from this figure.



Literacy.

10 The sample of female prison inmates was smaller than the sam-ple of male prison inmates, reflecting the fact that fewer womenthan men are incarcerated in state and federal prisons. Because thesample was smaller, standard errors were larger, and differences thatlook large were not necessarily statistically significant.The fact thata difference is not statistically significant does not necessarily meanthat there was no difference in literacy between 1992 and 2003 forfemale inmates; rather, it means that we cannot be 95 percent cer-tain that the difference we see in the sample would hold for thepopulation of female prison inmates as a whole.

19



by gender: 1992 and 2003

22

15*

22

15

33 42 3

35 48* 2

33 42 3

35 49 22003

1992 Female

2003

1992 Male

0 20 40 60 80 1006080 40 20


Gender and year Document

22

17*

25

9

40 35 3

39 41* 4

39 34 3

49 422003

1992 Female

2003

1992 Male

0 20 40 60 80 1006080 40 20


Gender and year Prose

1

49

39*

59

47

32 16 3

39* 20* 2

27 12 2

38 152003

1992 Female

2003

1992 Male

0 20 40 60 80 1006080 40 20


Gender and year Quantitative


1



tal disabilities (3 percent in 1992 and 1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this figure.


20


Age

The average prose, document, and quantitative liter-acy of prison inmates in the 25 to 39 age groupincreased between 1992 and 2003 (figure 2-9). The25 to 38 age group was the largest age group in theprison population in both 1992 and 2003, but thepercentage of the incarcerated population in this agegroup fell from 58 percent in 1992 to 52 percent in2003 (table 2-1). There were no statistically signifi-cant changes in average literacy among inmates inthe 16 to 24 or 40 and older age groups.

On all three scales, a lower percentage of prisoninmates in the 25 to 39 age group had Below Basicliteracy and a higher percentage had Intermediate lit-eracy in 2003 than in 1992 (figure 2-10).

In 2003, incarcerated adults who were 40 years oldor older had lower average prose and document lit-eracy than incarcerated adults who were 25 to 39years old (figure 2-9).

Figure 2-9. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison population, by age:

1992 and 2003

251 255247

260*250 252 250 248

242254*

238 240 236246

231

252*241 245

Age

16–24 25–39 40 or older 16–24 25–39 40 or older 16–24 25–39 40 or older

1992 2003

0

150

200

250

Average score

300

350

500




2003) are excluded from this figure.


21



by age: 1992 and 2003

21 37 41 1*

33 47 3

37 47 2

33 42 3

33 53* 2

30 37 5

17

14

23

11*

28

2003

1992

2003

1992

2003

1992

40 or older

25–39

16–24

0 20 40 60 80 1006080 40 20


Age and year Document

2003

1992

18

19

24

13*

21

202003

1992

2003

1992

40 or older

25–39

16–24

0 20 40 60 80 1006080 40 20


Age and year

45 35 3

38 40 4

37 35 3

40 45* 3

40 36 4

40 37 3

Prose

48

43

52

36*

46

42

36 14 2

37 18 2

31 15 3

42* 20* 2

30 19 5

35 20 2

2003

1992

2003

1992

2003

1992

40 or older

25–39

16–24

0 20 40 60 80 1006080 40 20


Age and year


Quantitative





22


Language Spoken Before Starting School

Average prose and quantitative literacy increasedbetween 1992 and 2003 for prison inmates whospoke only English before starting school (figure 2-11).There were no statistically significant changes inaverage literacy for inmates who spoke English andanother language before starting school or for inmateswho spoke only a language other than English.

The percentage of prison inmates who spoke onlyEnglish before starting school and had Below Basic lit-eracy decreased from 19 to 13 percent on the prosescale, 21 to 13 percent on the document scale, and 48to 37 percent on the quantitative scale (figure 2-12).The percentage of prison inmates who spoke only

English before starting school and had Intermediateliteracy increased from 38 to 44 percent on the prosescale, 44 to 50 percent on the document scale, and 16to 21 percent on the quantitative scale.

The percentage of prison inmates who spoke Englishand another language before starting school and hadBelow Basic literacy decreased from 32 to 15 percenton the prose scale (figure 2-12).

In 2003, prison inmates who spoke only English orEnglish and another language before starting schoolhad higher average prose, document, and quantitativeliteracy than prison inmates who spoke only a lan-guage other than English before starting school (fig-ure 2-11).

Figure 2-11. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison population, by lan-

guage spoken before starting school: 1992 and 2003

252261*

238

255

211 207

246 251242

250

213 210

237

252*239 243

197

219

1992 2003

English only English and other Other only English only English and other Other only English only English and other Other only0

150

200

250

Average score

300

350

500


Language



2003) are excluded from this figure.


23



by language spoken before starting school: 1992 and 2003

21

13*

20

12

43

40

32 44 4

35 50* 2

37 40 2

37 49 2

30 26 1

33 26 1

2003

1992

2003

1992

2003

1992

Other only

English and other

English only

Language and year

0 20 40 60 80 1006080 40 20


Document

19

13*

32

15*

47

51

40 38 3

40 44* 3

37 26 5

43 39 3

34 18 1

30 18 2

2003

1992

2003

1992

2003

1992

Other only

English and other

English only

0 20 40 60 80 1006080 40 20


Language and year Prose

48 33 16 3

37* 40* 21* 2

48 32 16 4

44 39 16 1

70 20 9 2

60 30* 10

2003

1992

2003

1992

2003

1992

Other only

English and other

English only

Language and year

0 20 40 60 80 1006080 40 20



1

Quantitative





24


Parents’ Highest Level of EducationalAttainment

Figure 2-13 shows prison inmates’ average levels ofprose, document, and quantitative literacy by theirparents’ level of educational attainment. There wereno statistically significant changes in the average lit-eracy of inmates in any of the categories of parents’educational attainment except for an increase inquantitative literacy for inmates whose parents hadsome high school education.

Figure 2-14 shows the distribution of prison inmatesby their literacy level and their parents’ level of edu-cational attainment.There were no statistically signif-icant differences between 1992 and 2003, except for

a decrease in the percentage of inmates with BelowBasic quantitative literacy whose parents completedsome high school.

In 2003, prison inmates whose parents had attendedsome high school (but had not received a high schooldiploma or a GED/high school equivalency certifi-cate) had higher average prose, document, and quan-titative literacy than prison inmates whose parentshad not attended any high school (figure 2-13).Prison inmates whose parents had postsecondaryeducation had higher average prose, document, andquantitative literacy than prison inmates whose par-ents ended their education with a high school diplo-ma or a GED/high school equivalency certificate.

Figure 2-13. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison population, by par-

ents’ highest educational attainment: 1992 and 2003

237 234

248258 256 258

268 271

231 232 236247 251 249

268260

219

236230

252*240

248262 263

1992 2003


High school graduate1

Some high school

Post-secondary



Some high school

Post-secondary



Some high school

Post-secondary

0

150

200

250

Average score

300

350

500


Parents’ educational attainment

*Significantly different from 1992.1High school graduate category includes GED and high school equivalency.


2003) are excluded from this figure. Postsecondary includes any education beyond high school.


25



by parents’ highest educational attainment: 1992 and 2003

33 35 3

35 36 2

35 36 3

35 47 2

32 49 3

37 49 1

26 60 6

32 58 2

30

27

26

17

16

13

8

8

0 20 40 60 80 1006080 40 20


2003

1992

2003

1992

2003

1992

2003

1992

Parents' educational attainment and year



Some high school

Postsecondary

Document

2003

1992

2003

1992

2003

1992

2003

1992

0 20 40 60 80 1006080 40 20





Some high school

Postsecondary

31

30

21

17

16

14

13

7

35 31 3

43 26 1

42 35 2

38 41 5

41 40 3

40 43 3

33 47 7

36 53 4

Prose

32

58

49

52

37*

46

39

30

27 13 2

38 13

31 14 3

38 22 3

35 17 2

41 19 1

37 24 6

40 26 5

0 20 40 60 80 1006080 40 20


2003

1992

2003

1992

2003

1992

2003

1992




Some high school

Postsecondary

1


Quantitative

*Significantly different from 1992.1High school graduate category includes GED and high school equivalency.


tal disabilities (3 percent in 1992 and 1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this figure. Postsecondary includes any education beyond high school.


26


Summary

The prison population was larger, older, and bettereducated in 2003 than in 1992. Average prose andquantitative literacy was higher among prisoninmates in 2003 than it was among inmates in 1992.More prison inmates had Intermediate prose, docu-ment, and quantitative literacy in 2003 than in 1992,and fewer had Below Basic prose, document, andquantitative literacy.

Between 1992 and 2003, average prose and quantita-tive literacy levels increased for prison inmates whowere Black, male, or in the 25 to 39 age group.Average document literacy increased for inmates whowere Black or in the 25 to 39 age group. Averageprose and quantitative literacy levels also increased forprison inmates who spoke only English before start-ing school, and average quantitative literacy levels

increased for Hispanic inmates.Among all the demo-graphic, educational attainment, and language back-ground groups examined in this chapter, there wereno decreases in average literacy on any of the threescales between 1992 and 2003.

In 2003, White prison inmates had higher averageprose, document, and quantitative literacy than Blackand Hispanic prison inmates. Prison inmates whowere 40 or older had lower average prose and docu-ment literacy than inmates who were 16 to 24 or 25to 39 years old. Prison inmates who spoke Englishbefore starting school had higher average literacy onall three scales than inmates who did not speak anyEnglish before starting school. Average prose, docu-ment, and quantitative literacy increased or did notchange significantly among prison inmates with eachincreasing level of education for them or their parents.

Documents

Literacy Behind Barsnces.ed.gov/pubs2007/2007473_1.pdf · Literacy Behind Bars Results From the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy Prison Survey. U.S ... as our customer,