A Synthesis of the Effects of Correctional Education on the Academic Outcomes of Incarcerated Adults
Most evaluations of the effectiveness of correctional education use the distal outcomes of recidivism and post-release employment as the dependent variables (e.g., Aos et al. 2006; Davis et al. 2013). This synthesis sought to determine the effectiveness of correctional education at improving proximal academic outcomes among incarcerated adult participants. A search of the peer-reviewed literature yielded only six studies meeting the selection criteria published from January 2003 to June 2014. Participants in all studies made educational progress as defined by academic and vocational test scores and course credits. The effect sizes in four studies of adult basic education and one study of vocational education were medium to strong (g = 0.52 to 2.04). One treatment - comparison study of college education demonstrated negligible negative effects, favoring the typical college program (g = −0.13 to −0.19). However, students in both conditions improved their standardized test performance and credit accrual. There were no studies examining general educational development (GED) test preparation. The discussion contextualizes the concerns with methodological rigor and addresses the remaining gaps in the literature.
KeywordsCorrectional education Academic outcomes Adult prisoners
References marked with an asterisk (*) indicate studies included in the research synthesis
- American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Pub. L. 111-5, 123 Stat. 115, 516.Google Scholar
- Aos, S., Miller, M., & Drake, E. (2006). Evidence-based adult corrections programs: what works and what does not. Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.Google Scholar
- Benner, A. D., & Haas, D. S. (2001). Adult basic education and literacy in Texas. Austin: Texas Education Agency, Texas Workforce Commission, and Texas High Education Coordinating Board.Google Scholar
- *Brown, M. A., & Rios, S. J. (2014). Can a workplace credentialing program improve inmate literacy? The Journal of Correctional Education, 65(2), 59–83.Google Scholar
- Chappell, C. A. (2004). Post-secondary correctional education and recidivism: a meta-analysis of research conducted 1990–1999. The Journal of Correctional Education, 55(2), 148–169.Google Scholar
- Churchwell, D. E. (2009). The impact of reading achievement on overall academic achievement (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest, UMI Dissertations Publishing. (AAI3389306).Google Scholar
- Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Davis, L. M., Bozick, R., Steele, J. L., Saunders, J., & Miles, J. N. V. (2013). Evaluating the effectiveness of correctional education: a meta-analysis of programs that provide education to incarcerated adults. Washington, DC: RAND Corporation and the Bureau of Justice Assistance, U.S. Department of Justice.Google Scholar
- Federal Bureau of Prisons. (2014). Inmate statistics. Retrieved from http://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_age.jsp.
- Foley, R. M., & Gao, J. (2004). Correctional education: characteristics of academic programs serving incarcerated adults. The Journal of Correctional Education, 55(1), 6–21.Google Scholar
- Gottlob, B. J. (2007). The high cost of failing to reform public education in Texas. Indianapolis: Milton and Rose D. Friedman Foundation.Google Scholar
- Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008, Pub. L. 110–315, 122 Stat. 3457–3459, codified as amended at 20 U.S.C. §1151.Google Scholar
- Houchins, D. E., Jolivette, K., Krezmien, M. P., & Baltodano, H. M. (2008). A multi-state study examining the impact of explicit reading instruction with incarcerated students. The Journal of Correctional Education, 59(1), 65–85.Google Scholar
- Lahm, K. F. (2009). Educational participation and inmate misconduct. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 48, 37–52. doi:10.1080/10509670802572235.
- Lewis, J. (2006). Correctional education: why it is only “promising”. The Journal of Correctional Education, 57(4), 286–296.Google Scholar
- Linton, J. (2005). United States Department of Education update. The Journal of Correctional Education, 56(2), 90–95.Google Scholar
- Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
- Lockwood, S. R., Nally, J. M., Dowdell, J., McGlone, J., & Steurer, S. (2013). Implementing the 2014 GED exam and computer-based GED testing in correctional facilities: a guide for correctional educators and administrators. The Journal of Correctional Education, 64(2), 5–21.Google Scholar
- Martinson, R. (1974). What works?—questions and answers about prison reform. The Public Interest, 35, 22–54.Google Scholar
- *Messemer, J. E., & Valentine, T. (2004). The learning gains of male inmates participating in a basic skills program. Adult Basic Education, 14, 67–89.Google Scholar
- *Meyer, S. J., & Randel, B. (2013). The impact of an associate’s degree program for incarcerated students: a randomized trial of the Correctional Education Association College of the Air program. Community College Review, 41, 223–248. doi:10.1177/0091552113497787.
- Moody, J. (2004). Distance education: why are the attrition rates so high? The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 5, 205–210.Google Scholar
- National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). Common core state standards. Washington, DC: Authors.Google Scholar
- Neild, R. C., & Balfanz, R. (2006). Project u-turn, unfulfilled promise: the dimensions and characteristics of Philadelphia’s dropout crisis, 2000–2005. Retrieved from http://www.pyninc.org/downloads/Unfulfilled_Promise_Project_U-turn.pdf.
- No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C.A. § 6301.Google Scholar
- Nuttall, J., Hollmen, L., & Staley, E. M. (2003). The effect of earning a GED on recidivism rates. The Journal of Correctional Education, 54(3), 90–94.Google Scholar
- Rosenthal, R., Rosnow, R. L., & Rubin, D. B. (2000). Contrasts and effect sizes in behavioral research: a correlational approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- Second Chance Act of 2007: community safety through recidivism prevention, Pub. L. 110–199, 122 Stat. 657.Google Scholar
- *Shaw, D. M., & Berg, M. A. (2009). Jail participants actively study words. The Journal of Correctional Education, 60(2), 100–119.Google Scholar
- *Shippen, M. E. (2008). A pilot study of the efficacy of two adult basic literacy programs for incarcerated males. The Journal of Correctional Education, 59(4), 339–347.Google Scholar
- Stephan, J. J. (2008). Census of state and federal correctional facilities, 2005 [NCJ 222182]. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Prisoner Statistics Program.Google Scholar
- Tewksbury, R., & Stengel, K. M. (2006). Assessing correctional education programs: the students’ perspective. The Journal of Correctional Education, 57(1), 1–25.Google Scholar
- Tewksbury, R., & Taylor, T. M. (1996). The consequences of eliminating Pell Grant eligibility for students in post-secondary correctional education programs. Federal Probation, 60, 60–63.Google Scholar
- Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, Pub. L. 103–322, 108 Stat. 1902, codified as amended at 20 U.S.C. §1070a(b)(8).Google Scholar
- Wexler, J. A., Reed, D. K., Pyle, N., & Mitchell, M. (2014). A synthesis of the effects peer mediated instruction has on adolescents’ academic outcomes. Journal of Learning Disabilities. doi:10.1177/0022219413504997.
- What Works Clearinghouse. (2014). Procedures and standards handbook (Version 3.0). Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.Google Scholar
- *Young, D. S., & Mattucci, R. F. (2006). Enhancing the vocational skills of incarcerated women through a plumbing maintenance program. The Journal of Correctional Education, 57(2), 126–140.Google Scholar