DL courses dramatically reduce recidivism

Michelle Fine at CUNY studied about 2,400 prisoners at a maximum security prison. Of the 89% who did not take DL college courses, 30% were jailed again within three years of release. Of the 11% who did take DL college courses, fewer than 8% were jailed again.

That's the good, even exciting, news. But the very sad news is that Jesse Helms was successful in 1992 in getting Pell Grants and other loan sources denied to prisoners. (At the time, they represented less than one half of one percent of Pell money.)

Given the cost of maintaining a prisoner, especially a maximum security one, the Fine data suggest that spending money on prison DL could be tremendously cost effective.

The Fine study is found at
http://www.changingminds.ws/

 

Might some kind of selection effect be at work here?

Perhaps the subset of prisoners who are motivated to take a DL course already have a lower recidivism rate to begin with.

The mere fact that they took the courses suggests that they had motivation and ambition. Even if they were just looking for something to occupy their minds, it indicates that they had minds to occupy. It also suggests that they already had secondary level academic skills. I would guess that the subset of convict-students would be much less involved in prison gang activity and stuff like that.

Or not. If that subset of convicts already had lower recidivism rates, you would gain little.

The question still to be answered is one of causation.

 

Nonetheless, the study is still a remarkable indicator that we need to provide our prisoners with opportunities to expand both academically as well as civically. If distance learning can be a medium for this, then I am all for it.

 

"Might some kind of selection effect be at work here?"

That is a good point. How could we design a study that would be more impartial? Select two prisons with similiar characteristics and offer substantial dl programs at one? Would there be a less costly way to do it? DL in prisons makes sense but I do have difficulty with prisoners using Pell Grants.

 

Re: Re: DL courses dramatically reduce recidivism

While Bill makes some good points about causation, it is clear that society benefits from making higher education available to as wide a population as possible. There should be debate as to what levels such education must be funded, but there should not be debate that DL serves a need that would otherwise not be met. That need is not only felt in the prisons, but also in geographically isolated areas, and among people who don't have flexible enough work schedules that allow then to fit traditional education in edgewise.

In that vein, shame also rests with people like the good Dr. David Noble, who apparently does not think that the need for DL supercedes his prejudice against it.

Tracy <><

 

Re: Re: DL courses dramatically reduce recidivism

This is the first concern that popped into my mind. In fact I deleted my reply when I realized your post duplicated it.

A possible approach would be to profile the DL prisoners and compare that profile with the prison population in general. A double blind test would appear to be out of the question.

There is some remarkable anecdotal support for the idea.

David

 

Bear writes: But the very sad news is that Jesse Helms was successful in 1992 in getting Pell Grants and other loan sources denied to prisoners. (At the time, they represented less than one half of one percent of Pell money.)

Bob writes: To be fair and balanced here, it should be noted that this bill was passed at a time when the Democrates held a majority in the Senate. A closer examination of the voting record reveals that 32 Republicans and 28 Dems voted for passage versus 11 Rep and 27 Dems against.

Bob

 

Are you saying that Jesse Helms was not pushing this issue? If that's not what you're getting at, then I'm confused about what your point may be...

 

Well it was the "Helms Amendment" but perhaps ol' Jesse was just being manipulated by others?

http://www.senate.gov/~rpc/rva/1021/1021161.htm

 

Um, er... before this gets out of hand and degenerates into a political debate, might I humbly suggest that it really doesn't matter who proposed it or voted for it, only that, as a result, prisoners have less opportunity for education. There are good arguments on both sides as to whether Pell money should be used, but I think that few would argue that, funding issues aside, providing increased educational opportunities to the incarcerated has got to be something that benefits society overall, regardless of whether it objectively reduces recidivism.

 

This was a political debate from the very first post.

I think that many different issues are being smeared together:

1. Is DL *associated* with lower recidivism? Apparently yes, if the Fine study is to be believed.

2. Does DL *cause* lower recidivism? Unproven in my opinion. It's possible that DL is simply of greater interest to those who are already prone to lower recidivism.

3. If DL does cause lower recidivism in the 20% of prisoners that use it, is this effect *scaleable* to the other 80%? I would guess that it probably isn't, since many of those individuals may prove incapable, recalcitrant or simply blow it off.

4. Even if DL does not cause lower recidivism, is it nevertheless *valuable* to promote it in prisons? I would say yes, but...

5. How would prison DL be *funded*? I dunno.

6. Among the possible answers to 5., are *government grants* making higher education free to prisoners the way to go? I would answer most emphatically: No.

My belief is that society should create disincentives to crime, not rewards. The last thing we need is a taxpayer funded "GI-bill" for felons: Shoot a 7-11 clerk, Get a free university education!

I can see no justification for giving criminals benefits that law abiding poor people don't receive.

7. If the means don't exist to give everyone in the country a free education, and only particular groups can be targeted, would it have the greatest *marginal utility* to target criminals with those programs? Might there be more social benefit in providing free DL programs to a different population, such as the law abiding working poor?

In other words, even if we all agree that providing taxpayer-funded higher educational opportunities to prisoners is a good thing, might it be an even better thing to provide those opportunities to someone else instead?

Bottom line: I think that this is a political issue from top to bottom. It is presented in the guise of an objective sociological study, but that study's interpretation seems politically laden. When you move on from there to policy recommendations, let alone criticism of particular Senators, you are clearly making political judgements.

 

Hello, I recently finished reading Jon Porters' book Prisoners' Guerilla Handbook. A good read for your Lenten journey. It gave me a little more understanding and has some good DL ideas. Hille

 

Come on, People!!!

Let's remember that the prison system is in place for the punishment of crime, not for rehabilitation of people. Rehab is up to the individual...

Don't we already sink enough of our tax money into these idiots that can't learn how to be upstanding citizens.

Growing up, I lived in a home in which my family made too much money qualify for financial aid, but at the same time, not enough to pay for a college education for me. Thank God I had some athletic scholarships thrown in there to help. If not, I would have been sunk.

Hell, maybe I will just go out and rob a bank or something and that way I can finish my degree!!!

Doesn't this sound a little warped???

 

Re: Come on, People!!!

Yes, we probably do. I have very mixed emotions about this issue, being both a DL advocate and a police officer.

Do I think DL courses/programs should be made available to prisoners? Of course. Anything they do during their sentence to improve themselves is great.

Do I think that the taxpayers should pick up the tab, either through grants or funded scholarships/grants? Maybe.

I'd be all for reinstating Pell Grants & other financial aid to prisoners, as long as they were serious about their education. Have them take a few CLEP or DANTES exams in some core subjects (Freshman Comp for example). If they pass, then approve them for FA.

However, I would very much be against any sort of aid or consideration for certain categories of criminals. Those serving time for homicide or molesting children would be right out, for example.


Bruce

 

"Might some kind of selection effect be at work here?" -BillDayson

I think that this is a no-brainer: of course there is. No one is asking these prisoners to educate themselves, yet they are doing it anyway. This shows a high degree of motivation, not to mention self-discipline; of course these same people are less likely to feel victimized by society and to engage in criminal activity again once they get out.

So no, it doesn't seem that taking a DL course turned a criminal mind into a law-abiding one; the predisposition to self-improvement was already there. However, suppose that DL hadn't been an option; how then could these self-motivated prisoners have found such an effective way to improve themselves? If their desire to improve themselves had been totally frustrated because no one cared about them and no one wanted to give them the opportunity to change their lives for the better, then who could blame them for feeling frustrated? Who could blame them for feeling like there was no way "out" of their present circumstances? If you wanted to change yourself, to conform better to society's norms, but society said, "Sorry, you lose. You're a loser and you will always be a loser, and I'm not going to do anything to help you to stop being a loser," do you think that your reaction would be to say to yourself, "Cool! I'm going to try anyway!"? I think it more likely that you would walk away even more embittered and ready to act just like the "loser" that everyone insists that you are.

Getting back to the DL issue, my approach would be to say to every prisoner (people on whom we spend tens of thousands of dollars every year to keep locked up), "Here is an option. You don't have to take it, but if you do, we will do everything we can to help you succeed." In the end, spending a few thousand dollars now could very well save us hundreds of thousands of dollars down the line - plus maybe save a life or two.

 

Just to play Devil's Advocate....

Do we really want smarter criminals? I can just imagine a world full of Lex Luthor and Hannibal Lecter types.

Sorry, feel free to ignore me.

 

Evil Graduate School

Remember Dr. Evil, Austin Powers' arch nemesis? No doubt his alma matre, Evil Graduate School, offers tuition assistance to the most hardened criminals

And please do call him "Doctor Evil." Otherwise he gets testy. He didn't spend all those years at Evil Graduate School just to be called "Mister," thank you very much.


Tracy<><