Reducing Inmate Misconduct and Prison Returns with Facility Education Programs

Abstract

Research SummaryParticipants and nonparticipants in Ohio prison education programs were compared in rates of misconduct during incarceration and prison returns after release. Propensity score matching was used to compare male nonparticipants with males who completed or started but did not complete GEDs, vocational training/apprenticeship programs, and college classes (each education group examined separately). More than 92,000 males were eligible for study, reflecting all men admitted to Ohio prisons between January 2008 and June 2012. Inmates who earned GEDs or completed college classes were less likely than nonprogram inmates to engage in violence during incarceration, whereas completing vocational training and apprenticeship programs had no such effect on any type of inmate misconduct examined. On the other hand, completing vocational training and apprenticeship programs, GEDs, or college classes at any point during incarceration coincided with lower rates of prison returns within 3 years after release. None of these benefits accrued to inmates who started but did not complete these programs/classes.Policy ImplicationsThe provision of GED programs and college classes to prison inmates may help to reduce levels of violence during incarceration, thus, providing safer facility environments for both inmates and staff. GED programs, college classes, and vocational training/apprenticeship programs may also help offenders to refrain from returning to prison, perhaps by providing knowledge and skills that enhance their employability in desirable jobs after release. The absence of comparable findings for inmates who started but did not complete these activities, however, underscores the importance of completion, providing incentive for state policy makers and correctional administrators to encourage inmates to complete these pursuits.

A Path Toward Evidence‐Based Classification

“…Given the observed relationship between prison misconduct and recidivism, we agree that in‐prison sanctions should be used cautiously and that graduated sanctioning guidelines should be used to ensure consistent application. Furthermore, we support Silver and Nedelec's conclusion that adhering to the risk, needs, and responsivity (RNR) model and providing opportunities for individuals to participate in evidence‐based programs are important prosocial opportunities that can improve both infraction behavior in prison and reduce recidivism (French and Gendreau, ; Pompoco, Wooldredge, Lugo, Sullivan, and Latessa, ).…”

Ensnarement During Imprisonment

“…Consistent with the prior literature, we defined recidivism as the reincarceration of an individual within ODRC for a new crime (Lugo et al., ; Pompoco et al., ). Notably, although the definition of recidivism was conservative, the measure diminishes the potential biases associated with more common operationalizations of recidivism such as rearrest (Maltz, ).…”

“…For example, demographic information, prison misconduct, prison programming, and recidivism were collected from 105,945 cases (88,621 unique individuals). For a more thorough review of the Evaluation of Ohio's Prison Programs study, please see Latessa, Lugo, Pompoco, Sullivan, and Wooldredge (); Pompoco, Wooldredge, Lugo, Sullivan, and Latessa (); and Lugo, Wooldredge, Pompoco, Sullivan, and Latessa (). As a result of the 3‐year follow‐up period for offender recidivism, the sample was limited to participants who were released prior to January 1, 2013 ( N = 64,240).…”

“…Corresponding with prior literature on within‐prison antisocial behavior, we employed a stringent definition of institutional sanctioning (e.g., Lugo et al., ; Pompoco et al., ). Herein, sanctioning refers to an infraction subjected to a rules infraction board (RIB) hearing, in which the inmate was found guilty and was formally punished.…”

“…Specifically, previous scholars have indicated that correctional officers might excessively ticket and punish inmates for noncriminogenic behaviors (i.e., behaviors that would not be subjected to a RIB hearing; Steiner and Wooldredge, ). Seven types of infractions can be subjected to RIB hearings: violence, drug, property, disturbance, escape, weapons, and all other infractions (Latessa et al., ; Pompoco et al., ). The Evaluation of Ohio's Prison Programs study captured three measures associated with inmate sanctions: type of infraction, date of inmate sanction, and outcome associated with the inmate sanction.…”