Your scrolling text goes here
top of page

How Educational Practices of the United States Prison System Affect Former Convicts

Feb 19, 20246 min read

Can you imagine going to prison at the age of 15 and not being released until you’re 83 years old? That is exactly what happened to Joe Ligon, who went to jail in 1953 and was not released until February 2021 (Lateef). 


Usually, there are four main reasons why one goes to prison; punishment, recovery, discouragement, and prevention from committing other crimes. As stated by the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, 600,000 people are released from state and federal prisons each year (“Incarceration & Reentry”). While some believe the practices of America’s modern-day prison system positively affect prisoners' lives post-release, others may argue that these practices are negative and need to be altered. Regardless of debates, our lives are affected, whether it is our communities' safety or our economy's strength. With this considered, to what extent do the educational practices of the United States’ modern-day prison system affect the lives of former convicts?


Recidivism

One way to determine the effect of the prison system’s educational practices on former convicts’ lives is through the observation of recidivism rates. Recidivism is the likelihood of a past convict to reoffend. One perspective is Stephen J. Steurer, a criminologist and one of the founders of the non-profit Maryland Correctional Education Enhancement Associates. He acknowledges that inmates who participated in educational programs while incarcerated “showed lower rates of recidivism after three years” (Steurer et al. 7). By stating a simple claim, he cements the understanding of lower recidivism rates amongst former convicts as he shows them to be a byproduct of positive education practices. In correspondence with Steurer, researcher Erin Castro, founder of the University of Utah Prison Education Project, adds statistical evidence to his argument. Castro explains that prison education “reduces the likelihood of returning to prison by 43%” (Castro 5).  Director of Research at the Justice Center of the Council of State Governments, Dr. Tony Fabelo, strengthens the arguments of the past two perspectives by studying recidivism rates of different age groups that complete prison education programs. He finds that inmates younger than 35 had a 37% decline in their two-year recidivism rate, while inmates 35 and older showed a decline of 55% (Fabelo 108). In other words, Fabelo says that those who complete prison-education programs are less likely to return post-release. 


 Employment

Across America, the benefits of the prison system’s educational practices can also be examined in employment opportunities for former convicts. One perspective, the Associate Initiative Director of the Vera Institute with a Ph.D. in Sociology, Ruth Delaney, states that former convicts who completed a prison education program have a “higher chance of obtaining employment post-release” than those “who did not participate in education programs” (Delaney et al. 10). Delaney is conveying that educated former convicts had higher chances of finding a job post-release than uneducated former convicts, although her argument lacks specificity. However, another perspective, Rosa Minhyo Cho, an assistant professor in the Department of Public Administration at Sungkyunkwan University with a Ph.D. in public policy, builds onto Delaney’s argument using the results of a study she conducted. She finds that Adult Basic Education (ABE) participants have “almost a 25% increase in employment levels” (Cho 11). Cho finds that ABE participants can find a job much easier than non-ABE participants. Of course, criminologists would undoubtedly take issue with the argument that educated former convicts earn higher wages than those uneducated. As articulated by another perspective, Grant Duwe is a criminologist with a Ph.D. in Criminology and Criminal Justice from Florida State University and is the Director of Research and Evaluation for the Minnesota Department of Corrections. He claims that although completing an education program in prison “significantly increases the odds of securing post-release employment,” it does not affect “measures such as hourly wage and total wages earned” (Duwe 5). While this may be circumstantially true, Fabelo refutes this by conducting a study in which he finds that former convicts who participated in prison-education programs earned an average of $2,442 more a year than inmates who did not (Fabelo 109). Amongst significant debate, these educational practices have clearly played a significant role in former convicts’ lives.


Community Safety

Moreover, the safety of the communities that the former convicts are returning to is another way of determining the effectiveness of prison education. Steurer acknowledges that education programs in prison can “reduce the likelihood of repeat offending” and “improve public safety for everyone” (Steurer et al. 1). His point is that to achieve maximum community safety, prison education programs need to be implemented because they reduce the chances of former convicts harming themselves or others. 

Another perspective, Betsy Simpkins, Research Communications Specialist at the Higher Education Coordinating Commission, provides a real-life example of the last argument. She states, “The culture and mission of Chemeketa is rooted in the concept of community, and making communities safer by investing in the education of their citizens is a great example of putting the core values of the college to work” (Simpkins 20). Chemeketa is a community college that focuses on providing prisoners with education programs because its mission is to make communities safer. They believe that focusing on educating prisoners goes a long way in increasing the safety of our communities. Educational opportunities in prison influence former convicts’ lives.


Solution

The effects of the educational practices of the United States’ modern-day prison system are embodied in the differing recidivism, employment, and community safety rates, having an extremely positive effect on the lives of former convicts. A plan that increases prison-education opportunities for prisoners around the country is necessary to lower recidivism rates and increase employment opportunities and public safety. One way to accomplish this is by increasing funding for education programs in prison. Though this may help increase prison-education opportunities, it is not the best solution due to public economic and political conflicts forcing significant adverse changes in funding. A better solution is for prisons to develop partnerships with their local community colleges. Arne Duncan, secretary of the U.S. Department of Education, explains, “Partnerships between prisons and community colleges can lead to significant benefits for all involved—community colleges, prisons, inmates, and the general public” (Duncan 29). This solution will decrease recidivism and increase employment and community safety due to more prisoners having access to education. Although this plan may not be able to heal the non-educational impacts, this plan continues to address prison education. If this course of action is not taken, we, as residents, will have to continue to worry about living in unsafe communities. As a collective, society needs to hold more positive views about former convicts and welcome them as they return to the open world.


Author Nezar Alsalah is a seventeen year old student living in Michigan with a passion for the STEM field. In his free time, he enjoys volunteering, working out, and writing.

Works Cited


Comments

Rated 0 out of 5 stars.
No ratings yet
Add a rating
bottom of page