The nonpartisan Urban Institute publishes studies, reports, and books on timely topics worthy of public consideration. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
Contents
I. INTRODUCTION
II. BACKGROUND
Highlights
Prison Growth
Prison Programming
III. REVIEW OF EVALUATION LITERATURE ON CORRECTIONAL PROGRAMS
Highlights
Conceptual Framework
Challenges of Program Implementation
Prison Programming Can Work
Methodological Problems Make It Difficult
to Identify Specific Programs that "Work"
Effective Programs Share Similar Characteristics
IV. PRISON PROGRAMMING: INVENTORIES IN SEVEN STATES
Highlights
An Overview of Program Types
Educational Programs
Vocational Programs
Prison Industries
Employment Services Programs
Participation Rates in Prison Programming
V. STRATEGIC OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVING AND EXPANDING CORRECTIONAL PROGRAMMING
Highlights
Opportunities to Change Policies
Opportunities to Change Practices
Opportunities to Improve Research
VI. KEY POLICY TARGETS
State Agencies
Colleges and Local School Districts
Federal Agencies
Non-Governmental Organizations
Private Companies
VII. CONCLUSION
VIII. REFERENCES
IX. STATE SOURCES
I. INTRODUCTION1
With increasing numbers of prisoners being released into society, the issue of prison programming has become a critical policy issue. As a result, policymakers and practitioners need information about the effectiveness of prison-based programming, the types and levels of programming currently available, and the opportunities and policy targets for improving and expanding effective prison programming.
With the goal of illuminating these issues, this report focuses specifically on employment-related programs in prison and addresses the following questions:
- What does the evaluation research literature tell us about the effectiveness of prison-based education, vocational training, and prison industry on postrelease outcomes?
- What is the state of practice of education, vocational training, prison industry, and employment/transitional training in prison?
- What are the strategic opportunities for improving existing employment-related programs and introducing new programs in prison?
To answer these questions, the Urban Institute first conducted a review of evaluation research on the effectiveness of education and work-related programs. In this report, we refer to these programs collectively as prison or correctional programs.
The Urban Institute conducted an inventory of programs in seven states in the Great Lakes region. These states were selected to illustrate the types and levels of programming in states within a similar region. Our goal was not to provide a national inventory of prison programming, or a systematic analysis of regional differences in programming. Rather, it was to explore and highlight the potential for considerable state-level variation and, as importantly, to identify the extent to which information on prison programming is readily available. In short, we examine these seven states to draw some general lessons that may be relevant to an understanding of
prison programming nationally.
This inventory covered employment-related correctional programs and was based on interviews with key stakeholders and extant information sources, such as annual reports from correctional agencies and national surveys of corrections agencies.
Based on the review, state profiles, and interviews with correctional administrators and experts, we present strategic opportunities for improving and enhancing prison programming. A conference held at George Washington University, entitled "Correctional Education and Training: Raising the Stakes" (September 24, 2001), afforded the authors an additional and unique opportunity to obtain up-to-date views and research on correctional programming.
The focus on prison programming is timely because of the dramatic increases in prison populations and the large increases in offenders released into society. Currently—and to anticipate the conclusion of this report—relatively little is known about which specific programs work and for whom, especially in relation to employment outcomes. In addition, relatively little is known about the extent to which or what types of correctional programming are offered.
Our preliminary review highlights the need for a much more systematic assessment of these issues. However, it also suggests that researchers have developed important groundwork in the area of correctional programming. There are core principles that effective programming should reflect. Our review suggests that the gap between programming need and resources is considerable. Few states come close to providing the levels and quality of programming that research indicates are needed to positively impact employment or other outcomes. Finally, practitioners indicate that opportunities, such as engaging private-sector businesses and building strategic partnerships with local and state agencies, currently exist for improving
and enhancing correctional programming. However, these opportunities vary depending on the unique context of corrections and correctional programming in specific states.
1 Grateful acknowledgment is extended to the Joyce Foundation for funding and supporting the creation of this report, and to the practitioners
and officials who agreed to be interviewed, including: Lowell Brandt, Iowa Department of Corrections; John Castro, Illinois Department of Corrections; Gary Grueter, Wisconsin Department of Corrections; Carolyn Heier, Indiana Department of Corrections; Rich Johnson, Michigan
Department of Corrections; Scott Olson, Minnesota Department of Corrections; Edward Rhine, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections; Mindy Tarlow, Center for Employment Opportunities; Charles Terry, University of Michigan-Flint; and Diane Williams, The Safer Foundation. The authors alone bear responsibility for all statements of fact and interpretation.
This report is available in its entirety in the Portable Document Format (PDF), which many find convenient when printing.
Latest Research
PDF
Print this page