Skip to content | Skip to institutional links

Common menu bar links

Institutional links

Subjects
Working at CSC
- Careers in Corrections
Resources
- Our Organization
- Policy and Legislation
- Facilities and Institutions
- Forms
- International Relations
- Links
- Programs
- Publications
  - By Title
  - By Subject
- Speakers Bureau
- Educational Resources
- Access to Information and Privacy
Proactive Disclosure

FORUM on Corrections Research

Literacy Training and Reintegration of Offenders

Results of studies over the last two decades clearly indicate that offenders who were functionally illiterate upon entering the prison system may be successfully reintegrated into society if they participate in literacy programs during incarceration.

What constitutes an effective literacy training program to prepare offenders for reintegration? There is no single answer to this question, and no one program has been singled out and proven universally effective. However, a common denominator of all effective literacy programs for offenders is that they do not conceptualize literacy as "readin', writin' and 'rithmetic." Instead, they define functional literacy broadly. They are holistic programs that link basic communication and computation skills with development of the total person. Goals of Literacy Training More than 15 years ago, Ryan et al.⁽¹⁾ identified four goals for literacy programs designed to prepare offenders for successful reintegration into society: 1. Self-Realization Goal In achieving self-realization, offenders develop the knowledge, skills, and attitudes needed to realize their potential and gain heightened self-awareness, a realistic and positive self-concept, a value system congruent with the larger society, and feelings of self commensurate with their potential abilities. Trudnak⁽²⁾ noted that functionally illiterate students are commonly unmotivated and demoralized, reflecting low self-esteem. The Council of Europe Select Committee of Experts on Education in Prison⁽³⁾ recently emphasized the key benefits of literacy programs in helping offenders develop a sense of responsibility, self-determination, an ability to manage stress, and an ability to counteract negative aspects of prison life.

Self-fulfilment equips offenders with decision-making and problem-solving skills that promote the development of cognitive and critical reasoning skills. 2. Economic Efficiency Goal Many offenders lack the knowledge, skills, and attitudes needed to manage family financial planning and to support themselves and their dependents at living standards above poverty level. Economically efficient individuals should be able to gain and maintain employment and to support themselves and their families with minimal or no assistance from private or pubic welfare.

In designing a literacy program for the Commonwealth of Virginia correctional system, Yurek and Yurek⁽⁴⁾ recognized that literacy skills are essential to acquiring and maintaining employment. Inmates must increase comprehension skills needed for job search, job training, and on-the-job performance. Through literacy training, they should become aware of career options and develop a belief in themselves and their capacity for a better future as a result of gainful employment upon release. 3. Social Relationship Goal By developing social relationships, offenders acquire the knowledge, skills, and attitudes needed to cope with social situations and to relate to others according to realities, expectations, and societal norms. The goal is to develop behaviour patterns that equip inmates to function effectively in home and community settings and to implement teaming and co-operation skills.

In our rapidly changing information age, the goal of social relationships requires a broad interpretation. Socialization of the individual must be one of the desired outcomes of literacy training. The social relationship goal should result in behaviour changes in inmates that allow them to interact with society in a manner not likely to be perceived as antisocial or deviant. This resocialization of offenders prepares them for successful reintegration into society.⁽⁵⁾ 4. Civic Responsibility Goal The goal of civic responsibility refers to preparing offenders to contribute in an organized, law-abiding way to the welfare of the group. Functionally illiterate inmates need to become aware of, and participate in, law-making, governance, and local community issues and affairs. They need to be informed about political issues and knowledgable about legal standards of behaviour. This goal is consistent with the objective of literacy programs to prepare inmates to be productive, law-abiding citizens who will remain crime-free upon release. Means for Achieving Literacy Goals It is impossible to describe any one literacy training program that would be universally effective in preparing functionally illiterate offenders for successful reintegration into society. Nevertheless, it is possible to design effective programs, and not necessarily by trial and error.

The staff in each correctional facility are responsible for designing literacy programs that address the needs of the offenders and that are relevant to social, economic, and political trends. The design of literacy programs must take into account the interests, aptitudes, and educational achievement levels of inmates, as well as their level of social and moral development and their capacity for problem solving, decision making, thinking, and reasoning. Research on Literacy Programs Relevant to Reintegration Over the last two decades, a considerable body of research on literacy programs has developed. In this context, functional literacy is defined in its broadest sense: it refers to the development of the whole person through the acquisition of cognitive, decision-making, problem-solving, and social skills in conjunction with the mastery of basic communication and computation skills.

Research has generally been conducted in three major areas: (a) the effect of educational programs on recidivism; (b) the characteristics of programs deemed effective in preparing inmates for reintegration; and (c) components of effective programs. Research on Recidivism At the outset, it should be noted that there are limitations to the extent to which one may describe the relationship between reduced recidivism and participation in correctional education programs as causal.

Wolford⁽⁶⁾ asserted that the practice of measuring the impact of correctional education and other institutional programs on recidivism remained questionable. He observed that education was but one component in a comprehensive change process for offenders.

McCollum⁽⁷⁾ stated that no responsible correctional administrator fantasized that education and training were the sole determining factors in postrelease behaviour.

In their review of research studies on the effectiveness of prison education programs, Linden and Perry⁽⁸⁾ observed that relatively few conclusive studies had been reported.

Although most evaluations showed that inmates had made substantial improvement in learning, the change did not necessarily have an impact on postrelease employment and recidivism.

According to Deppe,⁽⁹⁾ a popular misconception of correctional education is to assume that education is the answer to inmates' problems and that employment is the ultimate aim of corrections.

Coffey⁽¹⁰⁾ noted that the impact of correctional education on postrelease behaviour was as yet undetermined and that quality education coupled with work experience and gradual release had never been conclusively tested. Research on Characteristics and Components of Effective Literacy Programs Despite the questions about whether correctional education can be related to recidivism, some reported studies suggest a positive impact on the successful reintegration of offenders.

Schumacker, Anderson and Anderson⁽¹¹⁾ reported results of a study comparing a group of adult parolees who had received vocational and academic training, another group who had received only vocational training while incarcerated, and a control group who had received no training. A sample of 845 subjects was randomly selected and, after attrition, reduced to 760. The vocational and vocational academic groups reported the highest employment rates and lowest criminal activity after 12 months of follow-up, hereas the control group had the highest rate of criminal activity. Vocational completers," those who had finished a vocational course of instruction, had a higher employment rate and fewer arrests upon release. Those who had received at least a general equivalency diploma had a higher employment rate and lower criminal activity rate after 12 months than releasees who did not have a general equivalency diploma.

Based on an assessment of correctional education in nine correctional facilities, Rice⁽¹²⁾ identified program variables affecting rates of postrelease employment: degree of community and interagency involvement, inmate offence, type of instructional methodology, procedures for course development and implementation, intake and release procedures, and types of support services.

After reviewing files of 238 ex-inmates of the Vienna Correctional Center, Illinois, Anderson⁽¹³⁾ concluded that vocational training and education did improve postrelease success and ability to retain employment. He noted that as grades increased, so did length of employment.

Lee⁽¹⁴⁾ reported on an analysis of data from 1930 to 1977 comparing offenders who participated in educational programs with those who did not. The study revealed a significant relationship between correctional education participation and lowered recidivism rates in Minnesota.

Stevens⁽¹⁵⁾ studied two groups of offenders in Georgia to investigate the relationship between inmate demographic characteristics, participation in a general educational development program, and recidivism. One group consisted exclusively of inmates who had participated in the education program (N=2,000). The second group was a stratified random sample of inmates who had not participated. According to the results, recidivism among those who successfully completed the program was significantly less than for those who failed and those who did not participate.

To study the effects of participation in a vocational education program on recidivism, Shuman⁽¹⁶⁾ selected four 50-member groups from Delaware correctional institutions: two experimental groups who had received training and two control groups who had not received training. Results revealed that the rate of recidivism for the groups who had received vocational training during incarceration was significantly lower than for the control groups.

In a four-year follow-up of 320 adult male felons discharged from West Virginia correctional institutions, Mace⁽¹⁷⁾ found a strong negative relationship between recidivism and participation in prison education programs. Examples of Effective Literacy Programs The following brief program descriptions illustrate components of literacy programs that have been reported to be effective for preparing adult inmates for reintegration. Norwegian Program The Norwegian Program is a household management course for inmates in Norway, which addresses problems they encounter when released from prison with meagre finances, no permanent residence, and no secure social environment. Through 120 hours of group instruction, the course seeks to assist in the process of reintegrating offenders into a non-supportive outside environment. Topics include nutrition, hygiene, social life, and financial planning. Inmates develop realistic budgets reflecting the circumstances they will encounter upon release. ⁽¹⁸⁾ Canadian Literacy Project The Correctional Service of Canada launched a basic literacy project in response to the emphasis on functional literacy initiated by the Solicitor General of Canada in 1988. The adult basic education (ABE) curriculum design for the Prairie Region included communications, numeracy, natural sciences, and human sciences. The curriculum was accompanied by annotated reference booklets on ABE methods and materials, ABE and prisons, basic literacy curriculum materials, and ABE assessment.⁽²⁰⁾ Mandatory Literacy Program The Mandatory Literacy Program has been implemented in a number of U.S. state correctional systems. The concept of mandatory literacy training originated with the United States Federal Bureau of Prisons, which initially set the sixth-grade achievement level, measured by the Stanford Achievement Test, as the standard for mandatory participation in literacy training. If federal inmates tested below the standard, they were required to enrol in a literacy program for 90 days. While these inmates could withdraw after 90 days, they could not be promoted above entry-level labour grade in prison industries or institutional work assignments if they did not meet the sixth-grade standard. The standard subsequently was raised to eighth grade and, again in 1990, to high-school completion or equivalency for inmates to qualify for top jobs in prison industry or work assignments. The requisite participation time was also increased, from 90 days to 120 days.⁽²¹⁾ Huntington Prison Literacy Project The Huntington Prison Literacy Project is a successful, inmate-managed Laubach literacy program at Pennsylvania State Correctional Institution. Initially, inmates identified six priority areas for consideration in development of the program: organizational dynamics, selection and training of tutors, student-tutor relationships, maintenance of tutor interest, selection and use of supplementary materials, and learning problems. Inmate tutors were trained in a six-session workshop, during which the priority topics were discussed, case studies were reviewed, and results of research conducted by professional staff were reported.⁽²²⁾ Oklahoma Prison Literacy Project The Oklahoma Prison Literacy Project started in 1986, when a literacy task force studied the literacy needs of the inmate population and identified ways to meet these needs. The task force recommended the development of a state-wide literacy effort by all correctional facilities. The project was a joint effort of the Department of Corrections, the Department of Education, and the Department of Libraries. The Department of Corrections allowed staff who were apprentice trainers and supervisors the time to attend training sessions. The Department of Education furnished funds for the purchase of literacy workbooks and materials and enlisted school principals as literacy directors at each institution. The Department of Libraries supplied start-up kits for each facility, recruited literacy volunteers, provided an honorarium for each participating trainer, and paid the travel expenses of trainers. Members of 15 local literacy councils volunteered to work on the project. The Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board declared its full support of the project and agreed that parole hearings would give favourable consideration to inmate participation in the program. This linkage with parole gave credence to incorporating reintegration concepts into the curriculum.⁽²³⁾ Life Skills Programs Ryan⁽²⁴⁾ described the Individualized Life Skills Program, which was developed for the Georgia correctional system over a three-year period involving extensive research. The program was open-ended, with short modules of instruction to facilitate use of performance contracting and contingency management. Three themes - health education, family and civic skills, and consumer education - were designed for incorporation into the regular adult basic education program. Use of Technology Designed to give participants a sense of involvement and motivation, a sophisticated delivery system of radio, television, and computer-assisted instruction was developed and implemented in Bexar County Detention Center, Texas. The jail annex contained a closed-circuit radio and television system that could broadcast to all cell blocks. Integrated into the system was the PLATO computer-assisted instructional system, an interactive program with four component categories: records, communications, courses, and non-instructional activities. According to pre- and post-tests, the system resulted in higher scores in spelling and arithmetic computations and problem solving.⁽²⁵⁾ Cognitive Development Ventre⁽²⁶⁾ described a program, based on Kohlberg's theory of cognitive-moral development, which focused on the process of thinking about moral issues rather than on moral values as such. Kohlberg's theory established a hierarchy of levels of thinking about moral issues. The curriculum involved the presentation, in different formats, of subject area dilemmas and various options and responses to the dilemmas. Self-Esteem Model One experimental study analysed the effects of a mathematical educational model to develop self-esteem in male inmates.⁽²⁷⁾ Conducted at Louisiana State Prison, this research project examined subjects who were within 12 months of discharge, had an IQ of at least 80, and could read at first-grade level. Groups of five were tutored in 45-minute sessions twice a week for 18 weeks. According to the study findings, the educational model enhanced self-esteem while improving mathematical skills. Educational Support Program The Educational Support Program,⁽²⁸⁾ conducted in South Carolina from 1984 to 1987, provided offenders with linkage between education in the institution and continued education in the community upon release. Designed to ease the transition from prison to the community and to facilitate successful reintegration into society, the program helped adult female offenders to further their education, develop and enhance job skills, and improve self-concepts and self-esteem. The primary components of the program were intake, education (from literacy training to postsecondary education), support services, placement, and follow-up. Support services included intensive individual counselling, career guidance, group counselling, tutoring, and referral to community agencies. Weekly group-counselling sessions addressed values clarification, decision making, parenting, money management, leisure and recreation, communication, interpersonal skills, crisis management, legal issues and the law, and health and hygiene. The offenders also attended group sessions on job-search techniques, job readiness, and on-the-job attitudes and performance. Norwegian Followup Model Program Begun in 1985, the Norwegian Followup Model Program also addressed the need to link education in prison with continued education in the community after release. When they entered prison, inmates developed educational plans which included continued education in the community. Small follow-up classes, held in several communities in Norway, established a clear link between education in prison and education in the community. A pilot project, involving 100 to 300 inmates in three prisons, was reported to be successful.⁽²⁹⁾ Benefits of Literacy Training in Adult Prisons The costs of providing literacy training to adult offenders are far outweighed by the benefits - to prison management, inmates, and society in general.

According to the American Correctional Association Committee on Offender Programs,⁽³⁰⁾ prisons are safer for staff, offenders, and visitors if inmates are productively engaged in literacy training that promotes mental and physical health. Moreover, literacy training facilitates the offender's ability to read and understand prison rules.

Based on a review of the literature, Enocksson⁽³¹⁾ concluded that the education of inmates should result in their increased employability. Because work is of prime importance in adult life, inmates who fail to develop employable skills will be more likely to engage in repeated crime than inmates who achieve functional literacy and develop job skills. Successful completion of literacy training programs contributes to offenders' sense of self-worth and accomplishment and thus increases their motivation to succeed in the outside world.

The results of a study of Black inmates in Illinois led Black⁽³²⁾ to conclude that prison education could have significant rehabilitative effects on inmates lacking education and functioning at poverty level. In addition, once Black inmates experienced success in the educational program, their feelings of hostility and inadequacy were replaced by feelings of self-pride and self-worth.

According to the Select Committee of Experts on Education in Prison,⁽³³⁾ inmates with literacy problems deserve special attention because they suffer acutely. Their prospects for work within the prison and upon release are severely limited; their self-respect and self-confidence are impaired; and their social life may be curtailed. Inmates who successfully complete literacy programs are better prepared to cope with personal problems.

It is in society's best interest to make the prison population productive. To do so requires making offenders functionally literate. The American Correctional Association Offender Program Committee⁽³⁴⁾ has forecast that with the general population growth, the retirement of more workers, the expansion of the economy, the creation of more jobs, and the drop in the birth rate, there will be a demand for more workers, Society needs to capitalize on the economic contribution of inmates, most of whom will return to society. Those who leave prison unchanged and functionally illiterate will continue to commit crimes. Literacy, job skills, and life skills are needed to help reduce recidivism. Conclusion This era of increasing industrial, technological, and informational complexities demands more specialization and higher levels of performance. The acquisition of basic skills is the first and most significant step for functionally illiterate offenders to assume a place in the free world of today and tomorrow.

Trujillo⁽³⁵⁾ noted that the most desirable objective in adult basic education was the preparation of adults to function at their fullest capacities. Literacy training for inmates has been emphasized as a means to accomplish this objective. In fact, vocational training, higher education, and other avenues for social and economic advancement have little meaning for those who have yet to acquire basic literacy skills. A literacy program with a holistic approach must prepare offenders to develop new life perspectives, become aware of family, social, and civic responsibilities, develop the skills to maintain gainful employment, and change attitudes from defeatism and rejection to self-confidence, self-worth, and pride.

If inmates are to be successfully reintegrated, corrections must address the major challenge posed by the relatively limited participation of inmates in literacy training. Research has documented the problem of underenrolment, which plagues far too many prison education systems. Given the substantial proportion of functionally illiterate adult inmates, it is shocking, frightening, and unacceptable to find only a relatively small proportion participating in literacy programs in prison. There is critical need to overcome the hurdles that discourage many inmates from taking advantage of education.

A study by Glover and Lotze⁽³⁶⁾ (reported in the Research in Brief section of this issue of FORUM) revealed that although educational programs were available to all inmates in New York prisons, many inmates did not participate. In a comparison of inmates who attended school and those who did not, program participants were found to be older and serving longer terms. This finding raises a serious concern: younger inmates, most of whom are not career criminals, may be released in relatively short times, and they must be functionally literate in order to reintegrate into society successfully.

The Select Committee of Experts on Education in Prison⁽³⁷⁾ observed that throughout Europe, the proportion of the population with serious literacy problems was far higher in prisons than in the community. In a study conducted in France, the proportion of illiterate inmates was three times that of the general population, even though literacy had been defined very narrowly. In Canada, Collins⁽³⁸⁾ estimated that 65% of federal inmates were functionally illiterate, according to School and College Ability Test scores. In the United States, estimates of functional illiteracy in prison populations range from 40% to 75%, depending largely on the definition of illiteracy.

Given the international statistics - 40% to 75% of adult inmates in institutions are functionally illiterate, and as many as three quarters of the prison population do not participate in literacy programs - it is clear that there is a serious problem of under-enrolment in literacy programs.

Every nation has a responsibility to prepare a significant number of functionally illiterate offenders for successful reintegration and at the same time protect society against them until they are able to function productively in the free world. These offenders cannot and will not achieve the goal of successful reintegration until they overcome the handicaps of personal, economic, social, and civic deficiencies.

We can and must meet the challenges by replacing the concept of "caging" offenders with the concept of educating offenders and promoting literacy training for men and women in correctional institutions throughout the world. We can and must continue to ensure that jails, prisons, and reformatories provide literacy training programs that will prepare offenders to return to society as productive, responsible, socially acceptable, and economically self-sufficient citizens contributing to the well-being of their communities.

A major challenge to the research community is the need for more conclusive research and well-designed evaluative studies, particularly on mandatory literacy training, and well-conceived and - structured holistic education programs for adult inmates.

Dr. T.A. Ryan is Director of Criminal Justice Planning, Implementation, and Evaluation and a professor at the University of South Carolina. She holds a Master's Degree in Sociology and a Ph.D. in Psychology from Stanford University, and has pursued advanced studies at the University of Oslo and the University of Geneva. Prior to joining the faculty of the University of South Carolina, Dr. Ryan was a research professor at the University of Hawaii and Director of Planning, Implementation, and Evaluation in Corrections.

Dr. Ryan has been widely recognized in the field of corrections, having received citations for making "a significant contribution and impact on correctional systems wherever they exist." She has received awards from corrections groups in the United States and Canada in recognition of outstanding organization and administration of research, training, technical assistance, and evaluation in corrections and juvenile justice. Dr. Ryan has written extensively on corrections, having authored 5 books, 2 values inventories and more than 100 journal articles and monographs, co-authored 7 books, and edited 12 books. In addition, Dr. Ryan has served as consultant to the United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; the United States Education Department; the United States Bureau of Prisons; the National Institute of Corrections; and correctional institutions and agencies across the United States, Canada, and the territories.

⁽¹⁾Ryan, T.A., et al. (1975). Model of Adult Basic Education in Corrections. Honolulu: University of Hawaii.
⁽²⁾Trudnak, D.M. (1990). "The Letter: A Successful Reading-Writing Strategy for Adult Basic Education Instruction in Correctional Institutions," Journal of Correctional Education 41, no.3, 116-117.
⁽³⁾Select Committee of Experts on Education in Prison, Council of Europe (1989). Final Activity Report on Education in Prisons. Unpublished manuscript. Strasbourg: The Council.
⁽⁴⁾Yurek, E.T., & Yurek, F.G. (1990). "Increased Literacy Through Unison Reading," Journal of Correctional Education 41, no.3, 110-114.
⁽⁵⁾Hill, L.R. (1975). "An Adult Basic Education Curriculum," in T.A. Ryan, ed., Education for Adults in Correctional Settings, vol.11, pp. 420-424. Honolulu: University of Hawaii.
⁽⁶⁾Wolford, B. (1982). "Correctional Education." Paper presented at the meeting of the American Criminal Justice Society, Washington, D.C.
⁽⁷⁾McCollum, S.G. (1977). "What Works: A Look at Effective Correctional Education and Training Experiences," Federal Probation 41, 32-35.
⁽⁸⁾Linden, R., & Perry, L. (1982). "Effectiveness of Prison Education Programs, Journal of Offender Counseling, Services and Rehabilitation 6, no. 4, 43-57.
⁽⁹⁾Deppe, D.A. (1982). "New Model for Correctional Education," in L.J. Hippchen, ed., Holistic Approaches to Offender Rehabilitation, pp.256-266. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas.
⁽¹⁰⁾Coffey, O.D. (1982). "American Prison as an Educational Institution: Issues in Correctional Education for the 1980s," in L. Leiberg, ed., Employment Crime and Policy Issues, pp. 111-134. Washington, D.C.: American University Washington College of Law.
⁽¹¹⁾Schumacker, R.E., Anderson, D.B., & Anderson, S.L. (1990). "Vocational and Academic Indicators of Parole Success," Journal of Correctional Education 41, no. 1, 8-13.
⁽¹²⁾Rice, E. (1980). Assessment of Quality Vocational Education in State Prisons. Chapel Hill, North Carolina: System Sciences, Inc.
⁽¹³⁾Anderson, D.B. (1981). "Relationship Between Correctional Education and Parole Success," Journal of Offender Counseling, Services and Rehabilitation 5, no. 3, 13-25.
⁽¹⁴⁾Lee, H.K. (1981). "System Dynamic Study of a Criminal Justice System and an Appraisal of its Correctional Education." Doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota.
⁽¹⁵⁾Stevens, R.D. (1981). Effects of Selected Demographic Characteristics on General Educational Development (GED) Participant Success and Recidivism within Georgia Correctional Facilities. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University Microfilms.
⁽¹⁶⁾Shuman, C.C. (1976). Effects of Vocational Education on Recidivism of Formerly Incarcerated Individuals. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University Microfilms.
⁽¹⁷⁾Mace, J.L. (1978). Effect of Correctional Institutions' Education Programs on Inmates' Societal Adjustment as Measured by Post-Release Recidivism. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University Microfilms.
⁽¹⁸⁾Select Committee of Experts on Education in Prison, Council of Europe (1989). Final Activity Report on Education in Prisons. Unpublished manuscript Strasbourg: The Council.
⁽¹⁹⁾Council of Chief State School Officers, Educational Resource Center on Educational Equity (1990). "A Concern About Adult Literacy," Concerns 31, 1-3.
⁽²⁰⁾Collins, M. (1989). "A Basic Literacy Project for the Correctional Service of Canada: Curriculum Design as a Strategy for Staff Development," Journal of Correctional Education 40, no. 2, 51-54.
⁽²¹⁾McCollum, S.G. (1990). "Mandatory Programs for Prisons: Let's Expand the Concept," Federal Probation 54, no. 3, 33-35.
⁽²²⁾Correctional Education Association (1989). Learning Behind Bars: Selected Educational Programs from Juvenile, Jail. and Prison Facilities. Laurel, Maryland: The Association.
⁽²³⁾Ibid.
⁽²⁴⁾Ryan, TA. (1982). "The Individualized Adult Life Skills System," Journal of Correctional Education 33, no. 3, 27-33.
⁽²⁵⁾Diem, R.A., & Knoll, J.F. (1981). "Technology and Humanism: New Approaches in Correctional Education," Journal of Correctional Education 33, no. 1, 4-6.
⁽²⁶⁾Ventre, R.J. (1982). "Cognitive Moral Development in the Prison Classroom," Journal of Correctional Education 33, no.3, 18-26.
⁽²⁷⁾Roundtree, G.A., Edwards, D.W., & Dawson, S.H. (1982). "Effects of Education on Self-Esteem of Male Prison Inmates," Journal of Correctional Education 32, no.4, 12-18.
⁽²⁸⁾Ryan, TA. (1989). "A Transitional Program for Female Offenders," in S. Duguid, ed., Yearbook of Correctional Education , pp.209-223. Burnaby, British Columbia: Simon Fraser University.
⁽²⁹⁾Select Committee of Experts on Education in Prison, Council of Europe (1989). Final Activity Report on Education in Prisons. Unpublished manuscript. Strasbourg: The Council.
⁽³⁰⁾American Correctional Association (1988). Literacy: A Concept for All Seasons. Laurel, Maryland: The Association.
⁽³¹⁾Enocksson, E. (1980). "A Review of the Value of Education and Training in Penal Institutions," Journal of Offender Counseling, Services and Rehabilitation 5, no. 1, 5-18.
⁽³²⁾Black, A. (1984). "Role of Education in Prison and the Black Inmate," in D. Georges-Abeyis, ed., Criminal Justice System and Blacks, pp.307-314. New York: Clark Boardman Co., Ltd.
⁽³³⁾Select Committee of Experts on Education in Prison, Council of Europe (1989). Final Activity Report on Education in Prisons. Unpublished manuscript. Strasbourg: The Council.
⁽³⁴⁾American Correctional Association (1988). Literacy: A Concept for All Seasons. Laurel, Maryland: The Association.
⁽³⁵⁾Trujillo, T.M. (1975). "An Adult Basic Education Curriculum," in T.A. Ryan, ed., Education for Adults in Correctional Settings, pp.383-394. Honolulu: University of Hawaii.
⁽³⁶⁾Glover, J.W., & Lotze, E.W. (1989). "Prison Schooling: Who Gets Educated?" Journal of Correctional Education 40, no.3, 108-114.
⁽³⁷⁾Select Committee of Experts on Education in Prison, Council of Europe (1989). Final Activity Report on Education in Prisons. Unpublished manuscript. Strasbourg: The Council.
⁽³⁸⁾Collins, M. (1989). "A Basic Literacy Project for the Correctional Service of Canada: Curriculum Design as a Strategy for Staff Development," Journal of Correctional Education 40, no.2, 51-54.

Common menu bar links

Institutional links

Subjects

Working at CSC

Resources

Proactive Disclosure

FORUM on Corrections Research