Article 2018

Does providing inmates with education improve postrelease outcomes? A meta-analysis of correctional education programs in the United States

Journal of Experimental Criminology
Journal · Vol. 14 · Issue 3 · pp. 389-428
Abstract

Objectives: Our study addresses the question: Does providing inmates with education while incarcerated reduce their chances of recidivism and improve their postrelease employment prospects? Methods: We aggregated 37 years of research (1980–2017) on correctional education and applied meta-analytic techniques. As the basis for our meta-analysis, we identified a total of 57 studies that used recidivism as an outcome and 21 studies that used employment as an outcome. We then applied random-effects regression across the effect sizes abstracted from each of these studies. Findings: When focusing on studies with the highest caliber research designs, we found that inmates participating in correctional education programs were 28% less likely to recidivate when compared with inmates who did not participate in correctional education programs. However, we found that inmates receiving correctional education were as likely to obtain postrelease employment as inmates not receiving correctional education. Conclusion: Our meta-analysis demonstrates the value in providing inmates with educational opportunities while they serve their sentences if the goal of the program is to reduce recidivism. © 2018, Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature.

Keywords

Author Keywords

meta-analysis recidivism Correctional education

Index Keywords

Author Affiliations
RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, United States
American University, Washington, D.C., United States
University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA, United States
Funding & Acknowledgements
Bureau of Justice Assistance, BJA
Grant: 2010-RQ-BX-0001
Funding text 1: Funding information This research was conducted with support from a grant from the U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Assistance (2010-RQ-BX-0001). All analyses and interpretations are the authors alone.; Funding text 2: Our meta-analysis is part of a larger project conducted by the RAND Corporation under contract with the U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Assistance as part of the Second Chance Act. In 2010, the Department was determining funding allocations and technical assistance to an array of correctional rehabilitation programs. To inform this planning process, RAND was asked to objectively evaluate the empirical evidence to date on the effectiveness of educational programs administered to prisoners. To accomplish this, we undertook a multimethod study that included interviews, surveys, a systematic review of existing literature, and a meta-analysis, with findings from these analyses published in research reports for the Bureau of Justice Assistance (Davis et al. 2013, 2014). The present paper reflects an update and an extension to these originally published reports.
Bureau of Justice Assistance, BJA
Funding text 1: Funding information This research was conducted with support from a grant from the U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Assistance (2010-RQ-BX-0001). All analyses and interpretations are the authors alone.; Funding text 2: Our meta-analysis is part of a larger project conducted by the RAND Corporation under contract with the U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Assistance as part of the Second Chance Act. In 2010, the Department was determining funding allocations and technical assistance to an array of correctional rehabilitation programs. To inform this planning process, RAND was asked to objectively evaluate the empirical evidence to date on the effectiveness of educational programs administered to prisoners. To accomplish this, we undertook a multimethod study that included interviews, surveys, a systematic review of existing literature, and a meta-analysis, with findings from these analyses published in research reports for the Bureau of Justice Assistance (Davis et al. 2013, 2014). The present paper reflects an update and an extension to these originally published reports.
References 10 References
1 Andrews, Donald A., The Psychology of Criminal Conduct, The Psychology of Criminal Conduct, (2010)
2 Andrews, Donald A., The risk-need-responsivity model of assessment and human service in prevention and corrections: Crime-prevention jurisprudence, Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 49, 4, pp. 439-464, (2007)
3 Andrews, Donald A., DOES CORRECTIONAL TREATMENT WORK? A CLINICALLY RELEVANT AND PSYCHOLOGICALLY INFORMED META‐ANALYSIS, Criminology, 28, 3, pp. 369-404, (1990)
4 Andrews, Donald A., Classification for effective rehabilitation: Rediscovering Psychology, Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17, 1, pp. 19-52, (1990)
5 Evidence Based Adult Corrections Programs What Works and What does Not, (2006)
6 Arbuthnot, Jack, Moral reasoning development programmes in prison: Cognitive-developmental and critical reasoning approaches, Journal of Moral Education, 13, 2, pp. 112-123, (1984)
7 Journal of Correctional Education, (1983)
8 Parollees Problems Aspirations and Attitudes, (1973)
9 Risk Need Responsivity Model for Offender Assessment and Rehabilitation, (2007)
10 Bonta, James L., Reexamining the cruel and unusual punishment of prison life, Law and Human Behavior, 14, 4, pp. 347-372, (1990)
Quick Actions
Full Text via DOI
Citation Metrics
107
Times Cited (Scopus)

References 10
Document Identifiers