Life after prison
By Gerard Robinson and Elizabeth English
This year, more than 600,000 individuals will exit prison gates and return to communities across America. Almost one-third will be rearrested in their first year out, over half within three years, and over three-quarters within five years.
But our nation’s recidivism problem starts well before prisoners leave prison. Many of the 2.2 million behind bars today lack a high school degree, and while they are in state custody, most receive little or no preparation for life after prison. Often equipped with only a bus pass, whatever belongings they brought to prison and some pocket change, “returned citizens” leave prison ill-prepared to find work, housing and other necessities due to their lack of education, skills and work experience lost from time behind bars. Society has an extremely low bar for their success.
In a rare display of bipartisan consensus, policymakers have recently sought to reform the criminal justice system by focusing on those entering prison. By and large, these reforms have attempted to unravel “tough on crime” policies from the 1980s and 1990s by reducing sentences and repealing mandatory minimums.
While this thinking makes sense, it does little to reduce recidivism or increase opportunity for those already incarcerated. Many of today’s criminal justice conversations leave out the role prison education and re-entry programs can play. Ranging from college and GED courses to life skill classes, entrepreneurship courses and even seminars on Shakespeare, prison education and re-entry programs provide education, technical training and other resources to help the incarcerated become productive members of society upon their release. They can also reduce the costs of incarceration, which are estimated at nearly $80 billion nationally each year.
Most importantly, these programs have been proven to work. A 2013 Rand meta-analysis found that inmates who participated in correctional education programs were 43 percent less likely to recidivate than those who did not. And while research on reducing recidivism is sparse, researchers suggest that the most effective programs begin in prison. High-quality prison education and re-entry programs can increase opportunity, create safer communities and help ensure that those released from prison don’t go back.
Two programs — the Prison Entrepreneurship Program in Texas and the Prison University Project at California’s San Quentin Prison — offer a window into what is possible.
The first helps the incarcerated build skills and supports them after their release, including housing assistance and courses on navigating the working world. Many graduates go on to start their own businesses, and only 7 percent get in trouble with the law within three years of release.
The Prison University Project, meanwhile, is a higher education initiative within San Quentin that confers associate’s degrees through a partnership with Patten University. Instructors from Stanford University, UC Berkeley and other colleges in the University of California system teach the courses. Only 20 percent of graduates return to prison within three years of release, compared to over 60 percent of all California parolees.
Unfortunately, few prisons offer programs like these, or anything close to it. In fact, more closely resemble that described by Kevin Ring, a former inmate and current criminal justice reform advocate. In a 2015 statement before a House committee, Ring described his experience, stating, “I saw little to no rehabilitation in prison. There were few useful programs. The institution was either understaffed or uninterested in providing worthwhile programming.” Where programming did exist, Ring explained, “Most inmates skipped classes and would just sign their names to the attendance list during the week so the administration thought they went … prison officials seemed to know the classes were worthless, but they wanted us to seem busy so they could get credit … for keeping us busy.”
In recent years, national conversations on criminal justice reform have gained traction — and they have begun to include some emphasis on increasing educational opportunities for those in prison or recently released. As Prison University Project grad Chris Deragon explained in an NPR interview, “Most people believe that I’m being punished and that I shouldn’t have the right to an education. But … if I’m released onto the street and I’m not educated, then you’re just releasing another criminal.”
“…more emphasis should be given to how education can help reform the prison system.”
At the same time, the conversation on prison education is not new. In the late 1920s, Harvard-educated reformer Howard Gill proposed an idea for rehabilitating prisoners. His work led to the nation’s first “model prison community” at the Norfolk Prison Colony in Massachusetts. The prison had a library, a college-style quad for meetings and a volunteer corps of teachers. Among its other academic offerings, Norfolk offered prisoners a Debate Society. Between 1933 and 1966, the team racked up a 144–8 record and defeated opponents including Yale, MIT, Harvard, Princeton and Oxford. Many Debate Society members went on to lead productive lives after their release.
The takeaway is this: Innovative thinking is essential to raising the bar for those currently incarcerated.
As criminal justice reform continues to occupy the American electorate, more emphasis should be given to how education can help reform the prison system. As Congress considers criminal justice reform legislation, policymakers should push for measures that direct resources and research toward high quality models that reimagine prisons and offer the incarcerated a fresh start in life.
