Educational Programs for Adult Offenders Research Proposal

Among the study subjects, those who were under 21 at the time of release and did not have GED programmes, receidivism rate at 3 years post release was 54% compared to those who had GED while at prison. (40%). This study proved that educational programs are a more effective deterrent for young adults keeping them from falling back into criminal ways. [John et.al, 2003]

Studies have also focussed on other programs besides education that could aid in reducing recidivism rates. A recent study by Marylin and Cindy (2007) found that the Prison Industry Enhancement Certification Program (PIECP) which allows a prisoner to work for a private employer and earn real wages is also very effective in reducing recidivism rates. It was found that the PIECP program was better than both employment in TI (traditional industries paying modest wages) and OTW (other than work) activities in reducing recidivism rates and in increasing employment tenure post release. This study found that one year post release 82% of those who were enrolled in PIECP were arrest free while similar data for TI and OTW stood at 77% and 76% respectively. [Marylin & Cindy, 2007] agree with the author that prison educational programmes offer the best reformational climate for the inmates. However, this research does not have a comprehensive method of assessing the impact of correctional education. Some other researchers have expressed this deficiency in that most research on analyzing the effects of correctional programs tend to focus on macro variables leaving asides other variables such as method of delivery, experience and the educational level of the educator, etc. As Linton (2005) states, 'If the evaluator cannot pin down what program is being evaluated, what possible significance could there be in any numerical findings?' [Lewis John, 2005]

Therefore a new and comprehensive model is required for a more accurate evaluation of the educational programs and their positive effects.Education increases their chances of employment upon reentry and helps them reintegrate into the society. As the authors points out, the West Virginia Department of Corrections should have a proactive approach and include training programmes that are more useful to the prisoners in terms of landing up jobs. This involves the introduction of new and in trend courses rather than blindly adapting an outdated vocational training system.

Conclusion

Prisons are not just punishment centers but correctional institutions that are meant to rehabilitate the inmate population. Preventing recidivism is the ultimate motive of any correctional facility. Education as a change agent is the best way to reform inmates. Being employed is one of the best ways to avoid criminal tendencies. Skills taught in the vocational streams in prisons should match the current job requirements. Community correction education programs should therefore include in their vocational training courses that would be practically useful for the inmates once they are released. While there is no question of doubt that the offenders of law must be bought to the book, it is also equally important to realize that rehabilitation of the prisoner is the foremost purpose of punishment. For this to happen, there is an urgent need to make policy changes, commit more funds, and to show more effort and interest into the cause of converting our prisons from just being 'punishment centers' to "rehabiliatory centers'. There is no question of doubt that the authors of the study under review suggest the right way towards achieving that goal.

Bibliography

Released and Restored, 'Released and Restored: Statistics', Accessed Dec 14th available at http://releasedandrestored.org/statistics.html

Marylin C.Mosses & Cindy J.Smith (June 2007), 'Factories Behind Fences: Do Prison 'Real Work' Programs Work?, NIJ journal No 257

Nuttall, John et.al….....