THE PENAL SYSTEM: STALEMATE

by David P. Disabato

Public Law 103-322 September 13, 1994

SEC. 20411. AWARDS OF PELL GRANTS TO PRISONERS PROHIBITED

(a) In General - Section 401 (10)(8) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070 a (b)(8) is amended to read as follows:

(8) No basic grant shall be awarded under this subpart to any individual in any Federal or State penal institution.

Without the determination, morals, and abilities to maintain an acceptable and legal means of earning a living, the only option left to many former inmates is to revive old lifestyles, with a high probability of returning to prison. In society, there is an obvious, psychological belief that hardened criminals should be locked up to pay for their crimes. The public, however, must be made aware of the rehabilitative potential of Post Secondary Correctional Education (PSCE) and its fundamental results.

Imprisonment in the United States formally began in the early 1800s, with the belief that criminals could be rehabilitated through labor as well as discipline. This concept evolved into a prison labor force, discipline through an academic approach and the introduction of moral standards. However, in the latter part of 1994, in response to public concern, politicians imposed stringent guidelines upon federal and state prisons, i.e., sec. 20411 of Public Law 103-322. Consequently, the only opportunity for rehabilitation through academic means had been eliminated. The law was entered despite the recorded evidence that Post Secondary Correctional Education (PSCE) not only helped to reacclimatize the prisoners but also reduced recidivism.

Wary of responding to the social needs of the inmates, which in reality would lessen their chances of returning to prison, the Republican majority in Congress approved a bill that authorized grants of $3 billion to the states to construct new prisons ("Three-billion" 11). By addressing the demands of the voters' outrage over "soft [prison] conditions," Congress neglected to make several irrefutable facts known. Jon Marc Taylor, a former inmate, states:

Today it costs [$27,000] annually to incarcerate an individual, whereas one year of PSCE programming can be purchased for $2,500. In other words, for only 10% of the cost of a single year of imprisonment, an offender can enroll for two semesters ... chances for recidivating are in the low double or single digit range. (Williford 168-9)

Rehabilitation vs. Punishment: An Ongoing Debate

Approving and disapproving attitudes toward prison and rehabilitation have been long-standing and reflect antiquated views regarding the definition of incarceration. There are those who insist that imprisonment must deprive the offender of all levels of freedom, including any social contact with the "outside" world. In contrast, there are those who believe that crime resides in the mind of the criminal, and therefore, the offender should be enrolled in a range of programs that approach his moral, academic, and occupational needs. The debate against administering PSCE has grown in the last decade. The economy has continually fought to sustain some financial balance, an action that runs concurrent with the federal government and its national deficit.

Recently, federal spending has become a public concern as well, fueled by the media and misguided politicians. Because of this furor, the public outcry for appropriate criminal punishment has become entangled in the web of this country's struggle for financial stability. In their battle against crime, politicians, as well as the public, have failed to perceive that, to lessen crime, one does not just lock up the offender and throw away the key. The answer lies in the remolding of character, the installment of moral values, and the administering of academic guidance. Consequently, with an educational background and acquired social norms, an ex-offender would sustain a substantial probability of succeeding upon release.

Nevertheless, political and correctional policies that address current prison conditions often are set in motion without serious effort to examine the consequences. For example, in the federal government's rush to warehouse convicts, the side effects include the slashing of rehabilitative procedures. This is also present where educative programs are caught in a tangle of exclusive demands and policies. The "studies by the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics [which] have shown that between 60 and 70 percent of inmates revert to crime after release" (Bidinotto 69) have often been the basis of argument for those demanding the construction of more prisons and the exclusion of academic funding.

Primarily, the study never incorporated a program designed to research just how many of the recidivated convicts had received academic tutoring before their release. Secondly, statistics proving that the construction of additional prisons will deter crime are unavailable. For example, the number of inmates in federal and state prisons has practically doubled over the past decade. However, "the latest FBI statistics show that reports of violence increased 5 percent last year." The failure of the use of prisons to discourage crime results "from both demographics and justice-system inefficiency" (Gest 29).

Over the past two decades, prisons have become a growing, political industry. In Illinois alone, 16 institutions have been constructed within the last 18 years, and an additional two are in the process. In an attempt to amend the 1994 crime bill, the government is planning to enforce a state mandate that will keep inmates in prison for an extended amount of time in order to acquire federal money to erect new prisons.

Republicans complain [the crime bill] spent too much money on preventive social programs and not enough on prisons ... Speaker Newt Gingrich ... described the overall point of the [revised] Republican crime package as 'making crime expensive.' (Seelye A22)

Without a firm investigation for employable alternatives, the construction of new prisons remains the government's solution to deterring crime. Experts in the field of criminology, the legal system, criminal justice, and legislative reporting disagree with that philosophy. In his 1995 article subtitled "Society Pays the Price Of Lust For Punishment," William Rentschler observes that "research shows prisons overall are a colossal, enormously costly failure in controlling and reducing crime" (29). In 1992, US News & World Report disclosed, "California criminologists James Austin and John Irwin compared crime and imprisonment rates in each state during the 1980s and found no correlation." Malcolm Freeley, a criminal justice expert at the University of California at Berkeley, proclaims, "[t]here is no evidence of imprisonment's deterrent effect" (Gest 28-29).

According to a report by the Washington Bureau, "incarceration increased by 65 percent between 1980 and 1986, and violent crime dropped [during] those years by 16 percent ... when prison use increased by another 51 percent between 1986 and 1991, violent crime went back up 15 percent." Apparently, the opposite trends took place (Myers 3).

The argument for rehabilitation vs. punishment, which includes this nation's subsequent revisions of its policies, has been an ongoing debate since the first penitentiary was erected early in the 19th century. Throughout history, the government has consistently remained uncommitted to either faction. At first, hard labor was thought to be a curative measure for prisoners. After a decade or so, the people decided that rehabilitation would restore a state of mental health. This recurring motif has been apparent during specific times in history.

The most liberal moment in prison reformation was the very founding of the prison by the antiwar, anti-death penalty, brotherly loving, humanitarian Quakers ... of the eighteenth century. Conversely, we find the `lock them up and throw away the key' attitude, so prevalent [during] the nineteenth century, reflected in the Depression years between the World Wars and in the `get tough on crime' politicians of the past decade. (Williford 29)

It is evident that this "systematic swinging from left to right ... has been tied to political and economic factors" (Williford 28-29). However, wardens as well as prison commissioners have often agreed that warehousing convicts without the availability of rehabilitative measures is not the answer to deterring crime; in some cases, it merely amplifies violence. This theory is exemplified within the overpowering walls of prison and under the surveillance of guard towers.

Crime is routinely associated with violence, an explosive action bursting with intense chaos, brutality, and ferocity. In life outside of prison, where one has the freedom to choose and act as one pleases, violence is often impulsive and psychologically driven. In a controlled penal atmosphere, however, violent behavior stems from insurrection, tight quarters, overcrowding, and the lack of personal insight and recognition. This type of behavior is often imposed upon the less strong and those who lack protection from gang members or from an affluent bank account. A positive method by which to control such contemptuous actions is through the offer of programs using the prisoner's mental capabilities.

Richard Stratton, a former inmate and guest author for Newsweek, asserts that getting tougher on prisoners is a mistake. Today's politically motivated campaigns to make prison conditions even harsher are so wrongheaded ... I fear the rage and violence [increased through the negation of PSCE] will ricochet back at society. The only prison programs that have consistently been proven to reduce recidivism and temper violence are the education and counseling programs designed to help prisoners make positive changes in their lives ... to do justice, to break the cycle of violence, to make America safer, prisons need to offer inmates a chance to heal like a human, not merely to heel like a dog. (89)

Prison administrators have been found to hold similar opinions. Several employed by New York's Sing Sing Prison support PSCE programs "because they help maintain security by keeping the inmates busy ... a prison becomes what old-timers used to call "death struck"--when people in the prison feel it doesn't make any difference whether they're dead or alive" (Kunen 39). The State of Illinois expects to house 39,352 offenders in cells designed to accommodate approximately 29,000. In 1995, there were 946 inmate attacks against administrative personnel. The utilization of academic rehabilitative measures could have helped to reduce some of those attacks.

According to J. Michael Quinian, a former director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons:

It is the most important ingredient in managing a safe and secure institution to keep the inmates ... in either work or education or drug treatment or recreation ... idleness tends to breed more violence among inmates and create greater tension between them and their guards. (Butterfield 6)

Consequently, the termination of any form of rehabilitation represents the abandonment of the initial objective. Prisons were first constructed to house the "criminally insane" and to habilitate/rehabilitate their behaviors into those acceptable by society. The remaining question is: What has happened to the primary assignment of maintaining security, instilling humanitarian ideals, and molding an individual into a law-abiding, tax-paying, productive human being? In spite of the contrasting views of this nation, the role of its penal system should ensure society as well as the inmate that during one's imprisonment, the fundamental objective would be to address previous criminal behavior with the intention to rehabilitate.

However, this concept is not often supported politically, and several experts have expressed similar convictions in their writings. As early as the Renaissance in England, Thomas More advocated vocational rehabilitation in his renowned work, Utopia:

This method of dealing with thieves is both unjust and socially undesirable ... as a deterrent it's quite ineffective ... no penalty on earth will stop people from stealing, if it's their only way of getting food ... it would be far more to the point to provide [criminals] with some means of livelihood, so that nobody's under the frightful necessity of becoming first a thief and then a corpse. (44)

James Kunen, in his article "Teaching prisoners a lesson," cites, "[t]o this day, the most critical decisions about correctional policy are often based on considerations that have little relationship to the reduction of crime" (37). American policy in respect to imprisonment is presently in favor of punishment over rehabilitation. Politicians nation-wide, however, are cautious to take a stand on either issue. Albeit, those who lack adequate public support are not hesitant to preach about tougher laws, determinate sentencing guidelines, and interminable prison construction. However, in their politically motivated campaigns, they fail to announce the implicit cost factors.

For example, in Illinois, "a single bare-bones prison cell costs $55,000 to $75,000 or more to build, and [on the average, $27,000] annually forever to cage, feed and guard each inmate" (Rentschler 29). To complicate the cost, over the past 14 years, the population of federal prisons has increased by 230 percent, reaching a count of 92,000 inmates. In 1995, the U.S. took first place in the category of housing prisoners. "In the 12 months ending last June 30 [1995], a record 89,707 prisoners were added to the nation's [state prisons] ... totaling 1.5 million inmates," serving a combination of long and short-term sentences (Kleiman 1). A segment of the overall number is recidivating inmates whose right to an education is abolished through the government's rush to warehouse offenders and to slash rehabilitative programs.

Former PSCE Accomplishments

In outlining an implementation strategy for the reinstatement of the Pell Grant into federal and state prison systems, one must first take into consideration the success rate of previous academic rehabilitative programs, a subject which has seldom been approached within the politically motivational discussion, especially in this year's beginning presidential campaign. These programs were funded primarily through the Federal Pell Grant. When studying the positive effect Post Secondary Correctional Education (PSCE) had on student-inmates, a correlation is often drawn between the rehabilitative resolution of the program and its effect on the rate of recidivism. The following data is taken from research conducted by Dr. Niki Sebastian, a psychologist who taught at the New Mexico State Penitentiary (NMSP), from February 1978 to August 1980.

Sebastian's data conclude, "... participation in a prison-education program ... dramatically reduces] the number of prisoners who violate their parole or are convicted on new charges." Over a ten year period, 1967 through 1977, "among approximately 400 prisoners who attended classes ... inside the [NMSP], the recidivism rate averaged 15.5 percent." The recidivism rate for the entire prison during the same time allotment averaged approximately 68 percent. "This situation was unique in the prison, and may itself have provided the type of experience beneficial to successful transition to the free world." The study goes on to claim, "... our findings are provocative enough to suggest a need for a fully controlled study of the effect of education on recidivism" (77).

According to Miriam Williford, the author of Higher Education in Prison,

Beginning in the mid-1970s, studies of inmate college students revealed that they recidivated at much lower rates than non-enrolled prisoners. Between 1974 and 1979, three programs in Alabama, Maryland, and New Jersey reported substantial reductions in offender-students recidivism, compared with standard return rates. These reductions ranged from a drop of 57 to 37 percent in one case to a dramatic difference of from 80 to only 10 percent in another program. (168)

In a more recent study of the magnitude of prison education, James Kunen interviewed student-inmates at the Sing Sing Correctional Facility in New York. The following is a series of comments: "Being denied education in society is part of what brought us here in the first place," explained Cardell Shaird, a 50 year old resident. Do not "take away one of the most important things that humanize us, education" (34). Leslie Rodgers, a 37-year-old man due to be released in the late 1990s, reflects on how a lack of education is an initial cause for crime.

Without education, I had an inability to articulate [my] experience. And when you can't articulate your experience, No. 1, you lack the concepts or words to understand your situation, and, No. 2, you're in a position where you have limited means to broaden the range of your social existence. One consequence of that is frustration, powerlessness. This is not an excuse for crime, nor is it the single cause of crime, but it is certainly a factor. (38)

Illinois Department of Corrections

The data which follows is based upon research collected from three Illinois institutions: Joliet Correctional Center (JCC), Dixon Correctional Center (DCC) and Crossroads Correctional Center (CCC). The primary purpose for rehabilitation in the State of Illinois' correctional system was the conversion of inmates, through academic and/or vocational means, in preparation for their release into the community. The Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) is burdened with overcrowding. An increase in crime, along with stringent sentencing laws, is reason to reinstate its past rehabilitative methods. In addition, a proper introduction of societal values to the illiterate and/or ignorant inmates within the prison system must be administered to help reduce the recent rate of recidivism.

Until an inmate becomes aware of how to use his time constructively, he is treated as another number passing through the system. The administration of the prison assumes all inmates are cast from the same mold, which hinders any opportunity for the inmate genuinely interested in bettering himself. This attitude has a negative impact on inmates sincerely looking for change, creating frustration and helplessness. Competent, initial and ongoing training, that enables the staff to stay focused on the rehabilitative objective, would help alleviate the problem.

As previously mentioned, there are taxpayers who may argue that rehabilitation does not work, or its effects are limited, based upon the state's high recidivism rate; however, I have seen the opposite. As a tutor, working with young and old alike, I have seen men, intent on spending their time constructively, progress from a sixth-grade educational level to obtaining their General Education Degrees (GED). Several of the men have then continued their education in the various vocational programs offered, or they selected available college courses. At Joliet Correctional Center, a maximum penitentiary, I tutored a student who, two months after his release, corresponded on letterhead bearing his new employer's logo.

At Dixon Correctional Center, a medium security institution, my student was Paul Rodriguez. His academic education had barely reached the eighth grade level. When he approached me and asked for tutoring assistance, the only school materials he had were used copies of math books. I gave Paul several books for beginning English and Math that I received during my tutorial instruction classes. Within six months, Rodriguez received his GED.

No matter how substantial the teaching process, an inmate's comprehension and retention are based upon his state of mind. An inmate's attitudes, objectives, and goals can be redirected through a correct transformational approach. As the Panel on Research on Rehabilitation Techniques argues,

The effort must begin with more careful and systematic formulation of treatments based on the best current thinking about the nature of the crime and the ways in which the criminals may be changed. (103)

New educational standards must be set and followed, starting with one-on-one counseling immediately after an inmate is processed. "It is suggested that the first instance of incarceration is the most important, and that a learning multiplier exists for the criminal in both legal and illegal learning" (Clark 61). The prisoner's adrenaline is racing in those first few moments. A prison counselor and/or representative from the educational department should be introduced to the inmate at this time. When the cell's iron gate initially slams shut, it is essential to create a proper prisoner/institution relationship.

In 1991, the academic programs of the IDOC could not accommodate the inmate whose goal was to participate in the educational programs. Beverley Scobell's (1993) article in Illinois Issues states that during the fiscal year 1992, approximately 4,300 inmates requesting classes could not be, and were not, accommodated (40). School District 428, the administrator of these programs, was simply not equipped to handle the inmate overload. The district was not at fault; rather, the educational arm and the application of its funding resources demanded reevaluation by the legislators of Illinois. Scobell later quotes Howard Peters III, former director of the IDOC, "The extent to which we can take people who are illiterate and teach them to be literate ...increases their chances of being law abiding" (41).

Twenty-five years ago, Daniel Glaser, a respected correctional researcher and a firm supporter of prison rehabilitation, stated,

If one compares only inmates of similar age and criminality, and only those confined for long terms, those in prison school for an appreciable part of their term have higher post release success rates than those in prison school only briefly or not at all. (Kasselbaum 57)

Supporting Glaser's statement, one way to lessen the relapse into crime is to mandate the acquisition of a GED certificate, prior to release, and have the law apply to inmates of all ages. This concept is presently under consideration in states other than Illinois. It would create an excellent chance for survival in the outside world, making it possible to acquire a good paying job and training for the future.

Interview with Dr. Michael Elliott: Director of Roosevelt/IDOC Program

Roosevelt University in Chicago has taken an interest in the academic programs within the IDOC, and has been persistent in contributing to the quality of teaching within the system. The following are excerpts from an interview conducted on March 14, 1996, with Dr. Michael Elliott, Executive Director of Roosevelt's Illinois Department of Corrections Adult Continuing Education program. Statistics taken from a 1994 inmate-student study are also included.

Q: Do you think educating inmates would diminish the recidivism rate? If yes, how would you apply this theory to the existing problem of recidivism?

A: When an inmate is released from prison, the ex-offender faces his biggest challenge in life. An ex-offender is given $50.00 to $75.00 and sent out the gate to survive in a brave new world. If the ex-offender does not have the appropriate attitude or the skills necessary to cope with society, along with a personal support system, the odds of returning to prison for an ex-offender are between 50 percent to 75 percent. Many ex-offenders have limited education, no job, no home, no family, and no place to go when they are released. It is not hard to figure out why the recidivism rate is on average between 50 percent to 75 percent and our prisons are overcrowded.

The reasons an ex-offender returns to prison vary. Yet, the major reason an ex-offender returns to prison is simply because he cannot find a job which provides them with a livable substance. This is especially true for an ex-offender attempting to support his family. Would educating inmates help to reduce recidivism and provide them with the skills needed to face the brave new world? Yes. In the past, if an inmate took advantage of the educational opportunities afforded him, the odds began to tilt with each increasing level of educational achievement. An individual who is serious about his rehabilitation and has obtained the following levels of education can achieve the following recidivism ranges:

Yes, education does work, but not by itself. You must also want to change your life from criminal to that of a law abiding productive citizen. If the individual does have an opportunity to enroll in a substance abuse program and kick the addiction which was cause for his imprisonment, no education given him will change his lifestyle.

Q: On the average, a prisoner costs the Illinois taxpayer $27,000 annually. What percent of this cost do you think was directed toward education, and was it proportional in comparison to other expenses directed towards rehabilitation?

A: Based on the 1992-93 Human Service Plan prepared by the IDOC, from a budget of $757,221,300, only 2.9 percent was spent on educational programs. Following is a recap of expenditures:

Fiscal Year 1993 IDOC Budget - $757,221,300.00

IDOC Population count

26,214 Adults

5,311 Community Correctional Center

1,407 Juvenile

32,932 Total IDOC Populations

(22,000 built to accommodate)

Fiscal Year 1993 Cost per inmate: $22,993.49

Fiscal Year 1993 IDOC Education Budget: $22,000,000 estimated at 2.9 percent.

The above information was derived from a study Elliott began in July 1990 to determine the recidivism rate of ex-offenders who graduated from Roosevelt University. The study included a follow-up survey of those graduates who have been released, in order to obtain information on employment (or unemployment), continuing education and training, and perceptions about being released. By fall of 1993, 216 student inmates earned Bachelor of General Studies degrees, while others earned degrees after their release. "Of the 117 former inmates who earned Roosevelt degrees and were released by the IDOC, only six, or 5 percent, have returned to prison" (Renaissance 9). These figures prove that a dedicated arm of the past rehabilitative system had returned 95 percent of its students back to society, law-abiding citizens.

The study also included a chart developed by Dr. Elliott that outlined levels of educational achievement and related recidivism ranges per a review of the literature on other studies about recidivism. Dr. Elliott indicated that studies related to recidivism have some fundamental difficulties because of their "methodology problem" of measuring and tracking the return rate of ex-offenders. Some of those problems include:

Elliott concludes: "(Inmates) who want to change do not want to return to prison. We try to provide something meaningful for them for when they are released." Between the years 1989 and 1994, the IDOC's use of Roosevelt's program had increased 180 percent, expanding from six to nine institutions throughout the state. As a result of sec. 20411 of Public Law 103-322, in September of 1994, the number of institutions committed to Roosevelt's successful program was reduced to four.

Interview With an Inmate at Crossroads Correctional Center

A candid inmate at Crossroads Correctional

Center was my next interviewee. George (an alias) had the following views on questions pertaining to a practical increase in the Post-Secondary Correctional Education program budget and the outcome it would have on the rate of recidivism.