Against Prisoner Education

¶ … college program for inmates was established in 1953, the number of educational institutions in the United States that have developed correctional education programs has increased dramatically (Williams, 1989). As recent as 1997, 55% of prison jurisdictions had a secondary education program while 25% had a basic adult education program (OSI, 1997). While supporters of inmate education believe the programs are beneficial, there is much evidence that the programs have yet to yield outstanding results. The programs are, in reality, costly, unstable, and show a soft stance on crime that the United States needs to reevaluate.

Inmate education is a costly program, resulting in less funding for public higher education. The 1997 Open Society Institute Report Education as Crime Prevention: Providing Education to Prisoners states, "New York State estimates that it costs $2,500 per year, per individual to provide higher education in a correctional facility" (OSI, 1997). At that high rate, the cost of educating even 1000 inmates is $2,500,000 a year. While funding for prison education programs grows, the funding for public higher education lessens. Since 1995, states have jointly spent more to construct prisons than universities.

In fact, there was almost a dollar-for-dollar tradeoff in 1995, with prison production funds increasing by $926 million (to $2.6 billion) while university construction funding dropped by a nearly identical $954 million (to $2.5 billion) (Jamison, 2002). The costs associated with educating prisoners are not only prohibitive, but are a heavy burden on the taxpaying citizenry. Not only is inmate education costly, it also has structural flaws, which make it less than ideal, and in the long run, less successful than the program first appears.

One such flaw, discussed by Conrath (1986) is the lack of coordination among correctional facilities. An inmate may start a program of study at one facility and, when he or she is transferred, find that the courses he or she needs to maintain that program are not available at the new area (Williams, 1989). This lack of coordination is likely to cause contempt and anger in an already volatile society. Another structural flaw, which makes inmate education an unstable program, is the occurrence of interpersonal and interagency conflicts at all levels (Williams, 1989).

These conflicts are usually because of overlapping or unclear lines of liability. Related problems, such as difficulties in orienting staff to the nature of prison teaching, lack of particularly qualified instructors, and a high turnover rate, are also issues that make the success of inmate education a possible failure. While many studies have shown a slight decrease in recidivism for inmates who participate in educational programs, there are many which show the opposite.

Minnesota, in 1996, spent more per capita on inmates than most other states did, with 70% of its offenders participating in programs, and still had 59% of the former inmates come back in three years (Arizona Daily Star, 2001). Probably the largest argument against inmate education is that of the image the programs give to the public. Many individuals involved in the criminal justice system come from low-income, urban communities. Many of these areas are also likely to have fewer resources in terms of educational programs.

Because of this, an unequal number of the imprisoned are undereducated (OSI, 1997). However, the solution to this problem should not be to educate this group once they are imprisoned, but should be to improve the educational system of the urban areas. By placing the education system into the prison, the states are essentially reaffirming the public belief that the communities are not able to be educated. Along with that belief is the problem of the fundamental idea behind prison being lost, that of punishment.

Corrections is designed for custody and control, and as a deterrent to early criminal behavior (Newman, et al., 1993). Since crime is an already appealing activity for the urban juvenile, as well as for upper class juveniles, the punishment part of the moral equation should be enforced to better serve the public. However, when juvenile offenders convicted of a crime can gain access to what may otherwise be unattainable, that of an education, the punishment becomes more of a solution than a deterrent.

The "soft on crime" image is especially hard on the already struggling lower class areas. These areas already have a substantially higher crime rate than average, and have a lower quality of education (Jamison, 2002). With the rising costs of academic tuition in these areas, as well as many others, and with rising taxes, the fact that part of the increase in taxes goes to educate inmates is a sore spot for many.

While victims of crime are not given any extra consideration for educational opportunity, the perpetrators of the crime are receiving an education as punishment. There is no question that some level of education in prisons aids in the inmates later adjustment to society. However, this is due to the fact that many are uneducated in the first place, hence their criminal past. Higher learning in prisons is a costly, ineffective,.