Skip navigation

Cji Research Brief 2 Education as Prevention 1997

Download original document:
Brief thumbnail
This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.
Research Brief: Education as Crime Prevention

11/26/03 12:21 AM

Research Brief
Occasional Paper Series - No. 2 - September 1997

Education as Crime Prevention
Providing education to prisoners
The History of Higher
Education
in Prison

In 1965, Congress passed
Title IV of the Higher
Education Act, which
explicitly permitted inmates
to apply for financial aid in the
form of Pell Grants to attend
college. The passage of Title
IV allowed for the expansion
of what had been a
smattering of higher
education programs in
correctional facilities. The
number of programs peaked
in 1982 at over 350 available
in 90% of the states. 41

In the 1970s, studies 42 were
conducted to determine the
achievements of correctional
higher education. Success
was measured by the rate of
re-arrest and the offender’s
ability to obtain and maintain
employment upon release.
The results were
overwhelmingly positive,
indicating that higher
education was responsible for
reducing an individual’s
chances of returning to crime,
which in turn resulted in
http://www.soros.org/crime/research_brief__2.html

This research brief presents the most recent data on the
impact of education on crime and crime prevention, and
examines the debate on providing higher education to
inmates.
“We must accept the reality that to confine offenders
behind walls without trying to change them is an
expensive folly with short-term benefits -- winning
battles while losing the war.” -- Former U.S. Supreme
Court Chief Justice Warren Burger 1
In response to the American public’s growing fear of
crime and the call for more punitive measures to
combat such fear, many legislators and policymakers
have promoted building more prisons, enacting harsher
sentencing legislation, and eliminating various programs
inside prisons and jails.
With re-arrest rates averaging around 60%, it is clear
that incarceration alone is not working. In fact, the drive
to incarcerate, punish, and limit the activities of
prisoners has often resulted in the elimination of
strategies and programs that seek to prevent or reduce
crime.
For instance, research shows that quality education 2 is
one of the most effective forms of crime prevention.
Educational skills can help deter young people from
committing criminal acts and can greatly decrease the
likelihood that people will return to crime after release
from prison. Despite this evidence, educational
Page 1 of 15

Research Brief: Education as Crime Prevention

11/26/03 12:21 AM

savings by reducing the costs
of incarceration and
victimization, and by
providing skilled workers to
the economy.

programs
in correctional facilities, where they have proven to be
extraordinarily effective, have in many cases been
completely eliminated.

In the early 1990s, elected
officials began introducing
legislation to prohibit federal
tuition assistance to inmates.
A counter-effort, started by
educators, correctional
officials, prison advocates,
and prisoners themselves
managed to stave off the
legislation until 1994, when
the Violent Crime Control and
Law Enforcement Act
effectively dismantled
correctional higher education.

Over 1.6 million individuals are housed in adult
correctional facilities in the United States, 3 and at least
99,682 juveniles are in custody. 4 The majority of these
individuals will be released into the community
unskilled, undereducated, and highly likely to become
re-involved in criminal activity. With so many exoffenders returning to prison, it is clear that the
punitive, incarceration-based approach to crime
prevention is not working. We need to promote policies
and procedures that are successful. Education,
particularly at the college level, can afford individuals
with the opportunities to achieve and maintain
productive and crime-free lives, and help to create safer
communities for all.

The Elimination of Federal
Support for Correctional
Higher Education

Despite tremendous evidence
supporting the connection
between higher education
and lowered levels of
recidivism, the U.S. Congress
included a provision in the
Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994
which denied all prisoners
access to federal Pell Grants.
The provision was initiated to
appeal to the notion that
prisons have become places
of leisure, and that inmates
were given access to higher
education at the expense of
law-abiding taxpayers.

Yet prisoners who were
eligible for federal tuition
assistance never received
support for college tuition at
the expense of those in the
free world. Pell Grants are
non-competitive, need-based
federal funds available to any
and all qualifying low-income
individuals who wish to
attend college degree
programs. The pool of money
available for Pell Grants is not
limited, and is only dictated
by the number of individuals
http://www.soros.org/crime/research_brief__2.html

The Educational Level of Offenders Is Low
Most individuals involved in the criminal justice system
come from low-income, urban communities, which are
also the most likely to be under-served in terms of
educational support programs. Not surprisingly, a
disproportionate number of the incarcerated are
undereducated. To a great extent, the inadequate
education of juvenile and adult offenders reflects the
failures and inadequacies of public inner-city education.
Juvenile Offenders
While illiteracy and poor academic performance are not
direct causes of criminal behavior, young people who
have received inadequate education or who exhibit poor
literacy skills are disproportionately found within the
criminal justice system.
According to a study conducted by Project READ, a
national program designed to improve reading
skills, youth that are confined to correctional
facilities at the median age of 15.5 years and in
the ninth grade read, on average, at the fourthgrade level. 5 More than one-third of all juvenile
offenders of this age group read below the fourthgrade level.6
Ninety percent of teachers providing reading
instruction in juvenile correctional facilities
reported that they had “students who [could not]
read
material composed of words from their own oral
vocabularies.” 7
Page 2 of 15

Research Brief: Education as Crime Prevention

who apply and qualify.
Whether in or out of prison,
an individual must meet the
exact same criteria to be
awarded a Pell Grant.
For qualifying individuals in
correctional facilities, the
average Pell Grant award was
less than $1,300 per year. 43
The total percentage of the
Pell Grants’ annual budget
that was spent on inmate
higher education was 1/10 of
1%. 44
As a relatively small
percentage of in-mates
attended higher education
programs and actually
received federal tuition
assistance, Pell Grant support
directly affected only a small
part of
the prison population. 45 Still,
this support had a large and
lasting impact on entire
correctional systems.

- Educated prisoners often
serve as teachers and tutors
for other inmates, and often
as examples and role models.

11/26/03 12:21 AM

Approximately 40% of youth held in detention
facilities may have some form of learning
disability. 8
With such high rates of learning disabilities and poor
educational skills, juvenile offenders are desperately in
need of quality education, yet are likely to be denied it.
For example, juvenile offenders in adult prisons can be
prevented from participating in GED programs because
of their age, and those requiring special education
services are, in some facilities, no longer eligible to
receive such education upon incarceration. 9
In most cases, once juveniles are incarcerated, even for
a short time, their line to education is forever broken.
Most juvenile offenders aged 16 and older do not return
to
school upon release or graduate from high school. 10
There is a strong link between low levels of education
and high rates of criminal activity, and one of the best
predictors of adult criminal behavior is involvement with
the criminal justice system as a juvenile. With so few
resources devoted to the education of juvenile
offenders,
it is not surprising that so many remain involved in the
criminal justice system well into their adult lives.

- Educational programs help
to provide structure and
lessen the need for
supervision, and in the words
of one
federal prison warden, “help
to keep the prison running
smoothly.” 46

As the impact of federal
higher-education tuition
support was felt beyond the
lives of individual recipients,
the denial of financial
assistance to inmates has
also reverberated.

- At least 25 states have cut
back on vocational and
technical training programs
since the Pell Grants were
cut. 47 In 1990, there were
http://www.soros.org/crime/research_brief__2.html

Adult Offenders
Like their juvenile counterparts, adults involved in the
criminal justice system are severely undereducated.
Nineteen percent of adult inmates are completely
illiterate, and 40% are functionally illiterate, which
means, for example, that they would be unable to write
a letter explaining a billing error. 11 Comparatively,
the national illiteracy rate for adult Americans stands at
4%, with 21% functionally illiterate (see figure 1). 12
Page 3 of 15

Research Brief: Education as Crime Prevention

350 higher education
programs for inmates. In
1997, there are 8. 48

- 25,168 college students in
correctional facilities were
recipients of Pell Grants for
the school year 1993-1994,
the last year federal tuition
support was available to
them. 49 While no follow-up
study has been done to track
these individual students, it is
highly likely that the majority
of them were un-able to
continue their college
education.

400 West 59th Street
New York, NY 10019
Tel: 212 548-0135
E-mail: cccc@sorosny.org
Website: www.soros.org/
crime/
The Center on Crime,
Communities & Culture is a
project of the Open Society
Institute-New York. OSI-New
York is a private operating and
grantmaking foundation that
promotes the development of
open societies around the world
both by running its own
programs and by awarding grants
to others. OSI-New York
develops and implements a
variety of domestic and
international programs in the
areas of educational, social, and
legal reform, and encourages
public debate and policy
alternatives in complex and
often controversial fields. OSINew York is part of a network of
more than 31 autonomous
nonprofit foundations and other
organizations created and funded
by philanthropist George Soros in
Central and Eastern Europe, the
former Soviet Union, Haiti, and
South Africa, as well as in the
United States. OSIÐNew York
assists these foundations by
creating programs on common
issues and by providing
technical, administrative, and
financial support.
http://www.soros.org/crime/research_brief__2.html

11/26/03 12:21 AM

The rate of learning disabilities in adult correctional
facilities runs high, at 11%, compared to 3% in the
general population. 13 Low literacy levels and high rates
of learning disabilities within this population have
contributed to high dropout rates. Nationwide, over 70%
of all people entering state correctional facilities have
not completed high school, with 46% having had some
high school education and 16.4% having had no high
school education at all. 14
Education Lowers Recidivism More Effectively than
Currently Supported Programs
Nationally, reported rates of recidivism for adult
offenders
in the United States are extraordinarily high, ranging
from 41% 15 to 60%. 16 The difficulty in pinpointing
specific rates of recidivism is often due to a confusion of
terms.
The national re-arrest rate, around 63%, is different
from the re-imprisonment rate, which averages around
41%.
17 Programmatic efforts to reduce recidivism have
ranged from boot camps and shock incarceration
facilities to
prison-based education efforts. The effectiveness of
these programs varies, but research shows that prisonbased education and literacy programs are much more
effective at lowering recidivism rates than either boot
camps or shock incarceration. For example, in a recent
report on crime prevention programs conducted at the
request of the U.S. Justice Department, 18 researchers
at the University of Maryland found that teaching
reading skills to juveniles worked significantly better to
reduce
crime than boot camp programs. 19
“Correctional education appears to be the number one
factor in reducing recidivism rates nationwide.” -Alabama State Board of Education. 20
According to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, there is an
inverse relationship between recidivism rates and
education. The more education received, the less likely
an individual is to be re-arrested or re-imprisoned. 21
A report issued by the Congressional
Subcommittee
to Investigate Juvenile Delinquency estimates that
the national recidivism rate for juvenile offenders
is between 60% and 84%. 22 For juveniles
involved in quality reading-instruction programs,
Page 4 of 15

Research Brief: Education as Crime Prevention

The Center wishes to thank
Michelle Fine, Ph.D., Professor of
Psychology at The Graduate
Center, CUNY, and Paula H.
Mayhew, Ph.D., Dean of the
Faculty at Marymount Manhattan
College, for their comments on a
draft of this research brief.

11/26/03 12:21 AM

the recidivism rate can be reduced by 20% or
more. 23
A five-year follow-up study conducted by the
Arizona Department of Adult Probation concluded
that probationers who received literacy training
had
a significantly lower re-arrest rate (35%) than the
control group (46%), and those who received GED
education had a re-arrest rate of 24%, compared
to the control group’s rate of 46%. 24
Inmates with at least two years of college
education have a 10% re-arrest rate, compared to
a national
re-arrest rate of approximately 60%. 25
Research studies conducted in Indiana, Maryland,
Massachusetts, New York, and other states have
all reported significantly low recidivism rates for
inmate participants in correctional highereducation programs, ranging from 1% to 15.5%.
26, 27

As with all research on prisons and jails, data on
correctional education tends to focus on specific
localities or states. Texas is one jurisdiction which has
done extensive research on the success of correctional
higher education.
The overall recidivism rate for degree holders leaving
the Texas Department of Criminal Justice between
September 1990 and August 1991 was 15%, four times
lower than the general recidivism rate of 60%. A twoyear follow-up
report found that the higher level of degree awarded
was inversely related to the level of recidivism -individuals
with associate’s degrees had a recidivism rate of 13.7%,
those with bachelor’s degrees had a rate of 5.6%, and
those with master’s degrees had a rate of zero (see
figure 2). 28

http://www.soros.org/crime/research_brief__2.html

Page 5 of 15

Research Brief: Education as Crime Prevention

11/26/03 12:21 AM

Corrections Officials Support Correctional Education
The vast majority of corrections officials believe that
educational programs not only benefit inmates, but also
the facility’s administration and staff. Inmate students
are better behaved, less likely to engage in violence,
and more likely to have a positive effect on the general
prison population. 29 Educated inmates can be a
“stabilizing influence in an often chaotic environment,
enhancing the safety and security of all who live and
work in the correctional facility.” 30 Indeed, 93% of
prison wardens surveyed in a 1993 study conducted by
the Senate Judiciary Committee of the United States
Senate strongly supported educational and vocational
programming in adult correctional facilities. 31
Correctional Higher Education Is a Bargain
The expense of providing higher education to inmates is
minimal when considering the impact upon rates of
recidivism and the future savings of preventing rearrest and re-imprisonment.
New York State estimates that it costs $2,500 per year,
per individual to provide higher education in a
correctional facility. In contrast, the average cost of
incarcerating an adult inmate per year is $25,000 (see
figure 3). 32 Why are correctional education programs
so inexpensive? For
the most part, higher education in correctional facilities
is provided by community colleges and universities that
offer moderately priced tuition.

“Society should recognize that the cost of college is
really very insignificant when you compare the cost of
the damage done by crime.” -- J. Michael Quinlin,
Former Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons 33
A combination of funding sources support an inmate’s
http://www.soros.org/crime/research_brief__2.html

Page 6 of 15

Research Brief: Education as Crime Prevention

11/26/03 12:21 AM

education, including in-kind donations from universities
and colleges, outside support (foundations, communitybased organizations, private donations), and individual
contributions from inmates themselves, garnered while
working at prison-based jobs. Until 1994, federal
support in the form of Pell Grants did provide a
substantial amount of tuition funding (see sidebar on
page 8).
The Savings of Providing Correctional Higher
Education Are Significant
Even in a hypothetical situation with a comparatively
expensive correctional higher-education program
($2,500 per year, per inmate in New York State) and
one of the highest recorded rates of recidivism upon
completion of such a program (15%), the savings of
providing higher education are still substantial:
The cost of incarcerating 100 individuals over 4 years is
approximately $10 million. For an additional 1/10 of that
cost, or $1 million, those same individuals could be
given a full, four-year college education while
incarcerated. Assuming a recidivism rate of 15% (as
opposed to the general rate of 40-60%), 85 of those
initial 100 individuals will not return to prison, saving
U.S. taxpayers millions of dollars each year.
In addition to the millions saved by preventing an
individual’s return to incarceration and dependence on
the criminal justice system, providing higher education
to prisoners can save money in other ways. The
prevention
of crime helps to eliminate costs to crime victims and
the courts, lost wages of the inmate while incarcerated,
or costs to the inmate’s family.
Why Should Prisoners Receive Higher Education?
The available statistical evidence overwhelmingly
demonstrates the positive impact of higher education
opportunities on the prison population. Some of the
resulting benefits are as follows:
An estimated 97% of adult felony inmates are
eventually discharged from confinement and
released into the community. 34
Studies have shown that individuals who receive
higher education while incarcerated have a
significantly better rate of employment (60--75%)
than those who do not participate in college
programs (40%). 35
The financial and societal savings of providing an
http://www.soros.org/crime/research_brief__2.html

Page 7 of 15

Research Brief: Education as Crime Prevention

11/26/03 12:21 AM

inmate higher education are enormous. Upon an
inmate’s release, the cost-benefit of reducing
recidivism will begin to be realized immediately.
If we consider the additional benefit of this
individual obtaining work, paying taxes, and
contributing to the general economy, and the
prevention of costs to victims of crime and the
criminal justice system, the benefits are
significantly greater.
The RAND Corporation, a public policy think tank
based in California, recently released a study
showing that crime prevention is more costeffective than building prisons. Of all crime
prevention methods, education is the most costeffective. 36
Higher education has a stabilizing influence on the
correctional environment and can help a facility to
run more smoothly and less violently than
correctional institutions without educational
programs.
The educational level of a parent is a clear
predictor of both the educational achievements of
a child and the level of parental involvement in a
child’s education. 37, 38 As the majority of
prisoners are parents, 39 the education of adults
in prison can have a positive and long-lasting
impact upon the
lives of their children.
Well-run, high-quality higher education programs
in correctional facilities can inspire correctional
officers to pursue additional education, and in
some
instances scholarship moneys can be made
available to those who work inside the facilities.
The positive impact of education in prisons should
inspire better public education for all citizens, both
in and out of
our prisons and jails.
Recommendations
Ensure quality education for juveniles involved in the
criminal justice system.
A child’s involvement in the criminal justice system can
be a critical intervention point to prevent future criminal
activity. Because we do know that education can be a
catalyst for change, it is essential to provide appropriate
programs, including special education, to juvenile
offenders. Particular attention must be paid to juveniles
housed in adult correctional facilities, and programs
designed to assist juveniles in their transition from
incarceration into the community must be supported and
http://www.soros.org/crime/research_brief__2.html

Page 8 of 15

Research Brief: Education as Crime Prevention

11/26/03 12:21 AM

evaluated to ensure the best possible opportunities for
successful reintegration upon release.
“My involvement with college...has opened my eyes to
all of the things that were wrong in my life. Now I have
a sense of priority, a sense of accountability, and have
made a legitimate premise for myself on which to
build.... My needs are still important, but not at
someone else’s expense.” -- Statement by an inmate
student. 40
Garner financial support for correctional education
programs from various sources.
With all of the evidence available supporting the positive
impact of correctional higher education, it is critical that
programs be fully maintained to allow for the maximum
number of qualified participants. The reinstatement of
federal financial assistance in the form of Pell Grants to
inmates is crucial. Alternative and varied sources of
funding must also be considered. For example, in New
York state, a variety of sources, including university
assistance, private and in-kind donations, and the
individual financial contributions of inmates and their
families, have combined to provide the financial support
for correctional higher-education programs.
Implement and fund post-release supportive
services.
The benefit of higher education is clearly an incentive to
maintain a crime-free life. However, because of the
dearth of supportive services, many individuals may
find
themselves released without access to employment
opportunities and/or additional training and education
programs. As the first few months after release are
critical, it is imperative that supportive services are in
place and that ex-offenders are provided with access to
them.
Fund evaluation of educational programs.
While it is clear that there is a strong link between
quality education and lowered levels of recidivism, there
are difficulties in determining exactly which types of
educational programs are most effective. Public and
private funders should support evaluation of correctional
education programs, which would include long-term
follow-up to determine the impact of programs upon
employment and the chance of re-involvement in the
criminal justice system for both female and male exoffenders and their children.
http://www.soros.org/crime/research_brief__2.html

Page 9 of 15

Research Brief: Education as Crime Prevention

11/26/03 12:21 AM

If we are serious about preventing and reducing crime,
it is critical to adopt the most effective, humane, and
cost-efficient means of doing so. As a reasonably
priced, highly efficient, and continually beneficial
method of crime prevention, education is clearly one of
the most successful means we have.
References
1. Taylor, J.M. (1993, January 25). Pell Grants for
prisoners. The Nation. p. 90.
2. The use of the term “quality education” is meant here
to distinguish between programs implemented to fulfill
federal and/or state guidelines requiring the education
of both adult and juvenile offenders but which are rarely
tested or evaluated for effectiveness, and educational
programs that have a documented success rate at both
providing education that meets community standards
and reducing recidivism.
3. Gilliard, D.K. and Beck, A.J. (1997). Prison and jail
inmates at midyear 1996. (NCJ Publication No. 162843).
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of
Justice Statistics. p. 1.
4. Juvenile is defined as an individual under the age of
18. It is difficult to collect data on juvenile offenders.
This total does not include the number of juveniles in
police
lock-ups, and only reflects the results of a 1-day census
count at private and public juvenile facilities, adult jails,
and state and federal correctional facilities. See:
DeComo, R., Tunis, S., Krisberg, B., Herrera, N.C.,
Rudenstine, S.,
and Del Rosario, D. (1995). Juveniles taken into
custody: Fiscal year 1992 report. (NCJ Publication No.
153851). Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention. p. 28.
5. Project READ. (1978). To make a difference. Silver
Spring, MD: READ, Inc. p. 27. In Brunner, M.S. (1993).
Reduced recidivism and increased employment
opportunity through research-based reading instruction.
(NCJ
Publication No. 141324). Washington, DC: Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. p. 5.
6. Project READ. (1978). To make a difference. Silver
Spring, MD: READ, Inc. p. 27. In Brunner, M.S. (1993).
Reduced recidivism and increased employment
http://www.soros.org/crime/research_brief__2.html

Page 10 of 15

Research Brief: Education as Crime Prevention

11/26/03 12:21 AM

opportunity through research-based reading instruction.
(NCJ
Publication No. 141324). Washington, DC: Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. p. 5.
7. Brunner, M.S. (1993). National survey of reading
programs for incarcerated juvenile offenders. (NCJ
Publication No. 144017). Washington, DC: Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. p. 29.
8. Gemignani, R.J. (1994). Juvenile correctional
education: A time for change. (NCJ Publication No.
150309). Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention. p. 2.
9. Juvenile Law Center. (1996, December). 1996 Annual
Report. Philadelphia, PA: Juvenile Law Center. pp. 8-9.
10. Gemignani, R.J. (1994). Juvenile correctional
education: A time for change. (NCJ Publication No.
150309). Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention. p. 3.
11. There is not a statistically significant difference
between the literacy rates of male and female
offenders. See: Haigler, K.O., Harlow, C., OÕConner, P.,
and Campbell, A. (1994). Literacy behind prison walls:
Profiles of the
prison population from the national adult literacy
survey. (NCES Publication No. 94-102). Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for
Education Statistics. p. 124.
12. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for
Education Statistics. (1992). 1992 national adult literacy
survey. Washington, DC: National Center for Education
Statistics. [On-line]. Available: http://www.ed.gov/
NCES/nadlits/overview.html.
13. Haigler, K.O., Harlow, C., OÕConner, P., and
Campbell, A. (1994). Literacy behind prison walls:
Profiles
of the prison population from the national adult literacy
survey. (NCES Publication No. 94-102). Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for
Education Statistics. p. xxiii.
14. Maguire, K. and Pastore, A.L. (1996). Sourcebook of
criminal justice statistics Ñ 1995 (NCJ Publication No.
158900). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,
Bureau of Justice Statistics. p. 567.

http://www.soros.org/crime/research_brief__2.html

Page 11 of 15

Research Brief: Education as Crime Prevention

11/26/03 12:21 AM

15. Harer, M.D. (1994). Recidivism among federal
prison releasees in 1987: A preliminary report.
Washington, DC: Federal Bureau of Prisons, Office of
Research and Evaluation. p. 2.
16. News and views: A possible reprieve for prisoner
higher education. (1995, December 31). The Journal of
Blacks in Higher Education. paragraph 5.
17. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (1997). Criminal
offender statistics. [On-line]. Available: http://
www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm.
18. Sherman, L. W., Gottfredson, D., MacKenzie, D.L.,
Eck, J., Reuters, P. and Bushway, S. Preventing crime:
What works, what doesnÕt, whatÕs promising. (NCJ
Publication No. 165366). Washington, DC: National
Institute of Justice.
19. Sherman, L.W. (1997, August 6). Crime prevention's
bottom line. The Wall Street Journal. p. A15.
20. Mosso, G.E. (1997, Winter). The truth about prison
education. Prison Connections. Volume 1, Number 3.
[On-line] Available: http://persephone.hampshire.edu/
wmpig/V1N3/prisoned. html. paragraph 2.
21. Harer, M.D. (1994). Recidivism among federal
prison releasees in 1987: A preliminary report.
Washington, DC: Federal Bureau of Prisons, Office of
Research and Evaluation. p. 4.
22. Brunner, M.S. (1993). Reduced recidivism and
increased employment opportunity through researchbased reading instruction. (NCJ Publication No. 141324).
Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention. p. 1.
23. Brunner, M.S. (1993). Reduced recidivism and
increased employment opportunity through researchbased reading instruction. (NCJ Publication No. 141324).
Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention. p. 6.
24. Siegel, G.R. (1997). A research study to determine
the effect of literacy and general educational
development programs on adult offenders on probation.
Tucson, AZ: Adult Probation Department of the Superior
Court in Pima County.
25. Marks, A. (1997, March 20). One inmates push to
restore education funds for prisoners. The Christian |
http://www.soros.org/crime/research_brief__2.html

Page 12 of 15

Research Brief: Education as Crime Prevention

11/26/03 12:21 AM

Science Monitor. paragraph 14.
26. Bettendorf, E. (1996, October 25). Prisoner poets.
The State-Journal Register. paragraph 52.
27. Tracy, C. and Johnson, C. (1994). Review of various
outcome studies relating prison education to reduced
recidivism. Windham School System: Huntsville, TX. pp.
6-7.
28. Data is averaged and does not add up to 100
percent. Tracy, C. and Johnson, C. (1994). Review of
various outcome studies relating prison education to
reduced recidivism. Windham School System:
Huntsville,
TX. p. 7.
29. Taylor, J.M. (1993, January 25). Pell Grants for
prisoners. The Nation. p. 88.
30. Consortium of the Niagara Frontier. (no date). The
benefits to New York state of higher education programs
for inmates. [pamphlet]. Amherst, NY: Consortium of
the Niagara Frontier. paragraph 4.
31. Elikann, P.T. (1996). The Tough-on-Crime Myth:
Real Solutions to Cut Crime. New York, NY: Insight
Books.
p. 151.
32. Taylor, J.M. (1993, January 25). Pell Grants for
prisoners. The Nation. p. 88.
33. Marks, A. (1997, March 20). One inmate's push to
restore education funds for prisoners. The Christian
Science Monitor. paragraph 13.
34. Boyce, C.J. (1994, July 15). For those behind bars,
education is rehabilitation. Minneapolis Star Tribune.
paragraph 12.
35. Taylor, J.M. (1993, January 25). Pell Grants for
prisoners. The Nation. p. 88.
36. Greenwood, P.W., Model, K.E., Rydell, C.P. and
Chiesa, J. (1996). Diverting children from a life of
crime: Measuring costs and benefits. Santa Monica, CA:
Rand.
37. Brown, P.C. (1989). Involving parents in the
education of their children. Urbana, IL: ERIC
Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood
http://www.soros.org/crime/research_brief__2.html

Page 13 of 15

Research Brief: Education as Crime Prevention

11/26/03 12:21 AM

Education. [On-line]. Available: http://www.ed.gov/
databases/ERIC_Digests/ed308988.
html.
38. U.S. Department of Education. (1996). The digest
of education statistics 1996. Washington, DC: National
Center for Education Statistics. [On-line]. Available:
http://www.ed.gov/NCES/pubs/D96/d96t024.html.
39. Over 75% of female inmates and 64% of males
have children. See: Snell, T.L. and Morton, D.C. (1994,
March). Women in prison. (NCJ Publication No. 145321).
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of
Justice Statistics. pp. 6-7.
40. Consortium of the Niagara Frontier. (no date).
Prison higher education programs: Statements by
inmate students and graduates. [pamphlet]. Amherst,
NY: Consortium of the Niagara Frontier. paragraph 6.
41.Taylor, J.M. (1993, January 25). Pell Grants for
prisoners. The Nation. p. 88.
42.Taylor, J.M. (1993, January 25). Pell Grants for
prisoners. The Nation. p. 88.
43. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Correctional
Education. (1995). Pell Grants and the incarcerated.
[pamphlet]. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Education.
44. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Correctional
Education. (1995). Pell Grants and the incarcerated.
[pamphlet]. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Education.
45. Less than 1% of inmates received federal Pell
Grants in their final year of availability. See: U.S.
Department of Education, Office of Correctional
Education. (1995). Pell Grants and the incarcerated.
[pamphlet]. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Education.
46. Worth, R. (1995, November). A model prison. The
Atlantic Monthly. paragraph 7.
47. Worth, R. (1995, November). A model prison. The
Atlantic Monthly. paragraph 12.
48. Bettendorf, E. (1996, October 25). Prisoners poets.
The State-Journal Register. paragraph 50.

http://www.soros.org/crime/research_brief__2.html

Page 14 of 15

Research Brief: Education as Crime Prevention

11/26/03 12:21 AM

49. Office of Correctional Education. (1995). Pell Grants
and the incarcerated. [pamphlet]. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education.
OSI Homepage | US Programs Homepage
CJI Home | Grants| Fellowships | Publications | About Us | Site Index | Contact | Top

http://www.soros.org/crime/research_brief__2.html

Page 15 of 15

 

 

Federal Prison Handbook
Advertise Here 2nd Ad
Stop Prison Profiteering Campaign Ad 2