|
Our prisons are filled with uneducated
males. Nationwide only 40% of prison inmates have completed
high school, less than half the rate of the general
population, and approximately 50% of inmates are
functionally illiterate. This is also true in Canada, where
it is estimated that 50% of the inmates in Ontario prisons
are functionally illiterate. It is no wonder that recidivism
rates in the U.S. range between 60 and 70%.
Prison Costs
This influx of inmates creates a pressing
need to build more and more prisons. California, with the
largest prison population in the United States, has embarked
in the largest prison building program in the country.
During the last thirteen years (August of 1984 to August of
1997) California has built 21 new prisons, with 47,844 beds,
at a cost $5.7 billion. There is a greater burden than the
massive cost of construction though; operating costs. The
average yearly cost to keep an inmate behind bars in
California is $21,470. The California Department of
Corrections (CDC) budget for fiscal 1998 9s $3.7
billion.
Although the California Department of
Corrections operating budget is only 7.6% of California's
massive $52.8 billion budget, it is more than the $3.3
billion that is allocated in the 1997-98 Budget act for
Community Colleges. The operating budget for public schools
is determined by the State Constitution as amended by
Proposition 98, adopted by the voters in 1988, which sets
minimum funding levels for K-12 and California Community
Colleges based on the previous years funding level, adjusted
for growth and inflation; however, California has been
struggling with a slow economy for the last several years
that has all but eliminated any discretionary education
spending above the statutory minimums. Critics claim that
education is bearing the brunt of prison expansion noting
that while there was a reduction of 8,802 higher education
employees, the California Department of Corrections has
added 25,864 employees, making it the largest department in
terms of staffing, with 43,061 employees.
In addition to these direct costs there
are many other hidden costs to consider. Many of the inmates
are fathers, with families to support (although, with only
55% of inmates working full time when arrested, they were
not doing a good job of this). In addition to welfare costs,
the lack of a father may be the reason for the increase in
gang activity, with the older gang members providing a
surrogate father figure. This in turn can be the cause of
the increasing high school dropout rate, resulting in an
endless circle of employable, illiterate young males turning
to crime. With males aged 15-24 committing the highest
percentage of crimes, this circle must be broken.
Post-Release Employment Project
(PREP)
There are many complex factors that
combine to reduce recidivism. Age, gender, education,
marital status, economic conditions and unemployment rate
upon release, three strikes laws, length of sentence,
religious observance, drug and alcohol use, and the type of
crime they committed. William G. Saylor and Gerald G. Gaes
have been working on a long-term study since 1983 for the
Federal Bureau of Prisons called the Post-Release Employment
Project. Saylor and Gaes have used a a methodology in study
design to minimize as much as possible the effects of these
variables in order to prepare a longitudinal evaluation of
recidivism with respect to prison job training.
Specifically, inmates were selected for the study if they
had received industrial work experience, vocational
training, or apprenticeship training while in prison. They
have included over 7000 inmates in the study in order to
create a large enough group to remain statistically relevant
over a long period of time.
To minimize extraneous factors a control
group was chosen using a two-step process that first
carefully contrasts the study group and the control group in
order for the control group to only contain participants who
would be likely to be selected for participation in either
prison industries or vocational training. This was to
prevent skewed results in the study due to self-selection of
participants. In the second step other variables were
factored in, allowing the selection of similarly match study
subjects. The net effect of this selection process was to
provide a control group that was matched with the study
group in virtually every respect; with the sole exception of
not actually receiving work or vocational training in
prison.
In their November 1996 "Interim Report
Long-Term Recidivism of U.S. Federal Prisoners," Saylor and
Gres report the following conclusions:
- The PREP results demonstrated that
inmates who participated in the work, vocational
training, or apprenticeship programs, or a combination of
these programs were less likely than comparison group
members to have a misconduct report during their last
year of incarceration.
- Study group participants were 24%
more likely than comparison subjects to obtain a
full-time job or a day labor job at some point during
their halfway house stay.
- By the end of the year, 6.6% of the
study group [35% less] and 10.1% of the
comparison group had been re-arrested or had their
supervision revoked.
- By the end of the [first]
year of supervision, 72% of the study group [14%
more] and 63% of the comparison group had found and
maintained employment.
- Men employed in prison industries had
survival times that were 20% longer than comparison group
members.
- Men completing vocational or
apprenticeship training had a 28% longer than comparison
group members.
- In summary, it appears that the
impact of in-prison employment in an industrial work
setting and vocational or apprenticeship training can
have both short- and long-term effects reducing the
likelihood of recidivism especially for men.
|