This SIG provides a forum for administrators and professionals responsible for program evaluation and staff development to discuss issues and trends. http://www.ceanational.org/phorum/list.php?16 Wed, 19 Jun 2013 10:33:08 -0400 Phorum 5.2.7 http://www.ceanational.org/phorum/read.php?16,2301,2301#msg-2301 http://www.ceanational.org/phorum/read.php?16,2301,2301#msg-2301
CEA is proud to announce a new course for two graduate credits or CEU called CEA Course: Implementing GED 2014 in Correctional Education - Professional Development Opportunity. Whether your agency decides to adopt the new GED 2014 or implement another high school equivalency by another company this course is for you. It covers topics such as Common Core Standards, the four major areas of the high school equivalency exam and teaching strategies for student success.

Working under a National Institute of Corrections grant CEA and Ashland video and audio-taped the recent national GED 2014 train the trainer event in Indianapolis in February, 2013. The course utilizes official GED training materials organizing them into a complete graduate school credit course. Please take a look at the attached flyer for details. We hope that you will take time to distribute it to your correctional education staff and any other colleagues who might be interested.

Forwarded from Steve Steurer/Tim Phillians]]> BJ Berquist Research, Evaluation & Training Tue, 26 Mar 2013 15:21:00 -0400 http://www.ceanational.org/phorum/read.php?16,1669,2055#msg-2055 http://www.ceanational.org/phorum/read.php?16,1669,2055#msg-2055
David B.]]> PNM-educator Research, Evaluation & Training Fri, 07 Dec 2012 22:02:02 -0500 http://www.ceanational.org/phorum/read.php?16,1888,1888#msg-1888 http://www.ceanational.org/phorum/read.php?16,1888,1888#msg-1888
With more than 1.7 million children having a parent who is incarcerated in a state or federal prison and evidence that they are at risk for developing behavior and school problems, attention has been turned to formalized mentoring programs that match at-risk youth with adult volunteers as an intervention effort to address some of the needs of this population. Despite their popularity, such mentoring programs have not been explored in the empirical literature.

In a recent research paper, Mentoring Children With Incarcerated Parents: Implications for Research, Practice, and Policy, Rebecca J. Shlafer, Julie Poehlmann, Brianna Coffino, and Ashley Hanneman investigated children and families who were participating in a mentoring program targeting children with incarcerated parents. The purpose of the study was to examine the development of mentoring relationships and children’s behavioral outcomes in the context of participating in a mentoring program.

The study examined 57 mentor-child dyads who participated in Mentoring Connections, a Department of Health and Human Services funded program administered through Big Brothers/Big Sisters, designed to serve children (4-16) with an incarcerated parent. The study examined the following research questions:
1.What is the rate and context of match termination among children of incarcerated parents participating in a mentoring program? Is termination related to children’s relationships with their current caregivers and incarcerated parents or their behavior problems?
2.During the first 6 months of participation in a mentoring program, what activities do matches engage in, how frequent is their contact, and what do participants report about the strengths and challenges of the mentoring relationship?
3.Is the frequency or length of contact between mentors and children related to children’s behavior problems during the first six months of program participation? Is program participation related to changes in children’s behavior during this time?

In this study. focused on children of incarcerated parents in the context of participating in a mentoring program, three main findings emerged:
1.Nearly one-third of the matches terminated within the first 6 months of participation in the program. Several common reasons for match termination emerged including scheduling conflicts, family issues, residential mobility, mentors’ underestimation of the commitment required, and match incompatibility.
2.Children experienced a number of sociodemographic risks and family transitions that created challenges for mentors.
3.Many children developed feelings of trust and closeness toward their mentors after continued participation in the program. Children who continued to participate in the program for 6 months and who met with their mentors more frequently exhibited fewer internalizing and externalizing symptoms.

This study is one of the first to explore mentoring children with incarcerated parents. The researchers conclude, “Federal initiatives to extend mentoring to high-risk children are a first step, but programs must do more to understand and address these children’s specific needs. Our conclusions echo those of other researchers who have cautioned against the unfettered expansion of mentoring programs. To ensure that mentoring programs are most effective, they should be theoretically grounded, rigorously evaluated using randomized controlled designs, and @#$%& children’s relationships with mentors and family members. Although many policymakers have embraced mentoring, scholarly work has not been commensurate with this enthusiasm. We are hopeful that this study can provide some initial insights for researchers and practitioners.”

The entire Children with Incarcerated Parents: Implications for Research, Practice, and Policy study may be found at www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov . Questions may be addressed to Rebecca Shlafer at shlaf002@umn.edu or Julie Poehlmann at poehlmann@waisman.wisc.edu.]]> Jerry Bednarowski Research, Evaluation & Training Tue, 20 Nov 2012 19:55:25 -0500 http://www.ceanational.org/phorum/read.php?16,1887,1887#msg-1887 http://www.ceanational.org/phorum/read.php?16,1887,1887#msg-1887
Last month, Wisconsin DOC Secretary Gary H. Hamblin released the first in a series of performance measurement reports on Department recidivism rates, produced by the Department’s cross-divisional Research and Policy Unit staff. Secretary Hamblin said, “This report, Recidivism after Release from Prison, sets the foundation for a consistent and defensible standard on how the Department defines and calculates recidivism rates. The scope of this analysis is impressive, tracking almost 125,000 offenders released from the Wisconsin prison system over a period of 20 years. Even more impressive are the results. Data shows that release from prison recidivism rates have steadily decreased since 1993.”

Although Secretary Hamblin acknowledged that there are many reasons for this trend, he believed, “…one of the major factors in this success is directly related to the ongoing work and dedication of our staff across all facets of the Department, our collaborations with criminal justice and community partners, and our collective commitment to keep Wisconsin safe by reducing recidivism.”

Analyses of recidivism data revealed that the rate decreased by 28.5% (or 12.9 percentage points) from 1993, when the recidivism rate was the highest at 45.3%, to 2007, when it was 32.4%. Furthermore, as recidivism rates decreased, the number of releases from prison dramatically increased, tripling between 1990 and 2009. An offender released in 1993 was 1.4 times more likely to recidivate within three years than an offender released in 2007. The Recidivism after Release from Prison report goes on to break down the recidivism trends by gender, age at release, and time to recidivism event.

This report is the first in a series of recidivism reports that the Wisconsin DOC will publish on a regular basis. The next recidivism report will include release from incarceration recidivism rates broken down by: race, release type, length of stay in prison, number of prior episodes of incarceration, estimated risk level, recidivism offense type, and recidivist offense sentence type (prison vs. probation). Following that, reports will be published documenting recidivism rates for offenders admitted to any form of Wisconsin DOC supervision and offenders discharged from Wisconsin DOC supervision. Finally, a report examining factors that affect recidivism rates will be published. This report will examine which factors lead to success, which factors lead to failure (recidivism), and, of these factors, which contribute the most to success or failure.

The entire Recidivism after Release from Prison report may be obtained by contacting Holly Audley, Office of Secretary Reentry Unit-EBP Manager at holly.audley@wisconsin.gov.]]> Jerry Bednarowski Research, Evaluation & Training Tue, 20 Nov 2012 19:50:48 -0500 http://www.ceanational.org/phorum/read.php?16,1616,1762#msg-1762 http://www.ceanational.org/phorum/read.php?16,1616,1762#msg-1762
I am mother of a female inmate student in Oregon pursuing her degree through print-based correspondence--presently the only option in Oregon. I am in contact with Oregon's DOC Education chief who can give me a policy and prospects overview, but research from other states or regions regarding college/women in prison would be helpful for a report I am preparing for an advocacy organization oriented to female inmates.]]> Marina McShane Research, Evaluation & Training Tue, 02 Oct 2012 23:09:32 -0400 http://www.ceanational.org/phorum/read.php?16,1708,1708#msg-1708 http://www.ceanational.org/phorum/read.php?16,1708,1708#msg-1708
The mission of the Children's Justice Alliance, a program of Pathfinders of Oregon, is to improve outcomes for children whose parents are involved in the criminal justice system. One of the means the Children's Justice Alliance uses to accomplish its mission is the Parenting Inside Out curriculum designed specifically for criminal justice-involved parents to help them break the cycle of criminality. The prison version of the Parenting Inside Out program is an evidence-based parenting skills training program that is appropriate for both incarcerated mothers and incarcerated fathers who are parenting from prison. The community version is appropriate for parents on parole or probation.

Curriculum
Parenting Inside Out is a cognitive-behavioral parent management skills training program created for incarcerated parents through a six-year collaboration of scientists, policy makers, practitioners, and instructional designers.

At the core of Parenting Inside Out is the Parent Management Training curriculum, which appears on the “best practice” lists of the American Psychological Association, the US Department of Health & Human Services, and the Office of Victims of Crime of the US Department of Justice. Parent Management Training includes communication, problem solving, monitoring, positive reinforcement and non-violent discipline techniques. With input from inmates and their families, researchers built upon the Parent Management Training curriculum to make it effective within the context and restrictions of parents and families involved in the justice system.

What makes Parenting Inside Out different is that it is based on cognitive behavioral and social learning theory — proven methodologies for creating change with criminal justice involved persons. Parents develop and refine social interactional skills and citizenship behaviors they can use in all aspects of their lives, and that will help them guide their children toward becoming positive, constructive adults.


One of the central activities in the prison curriculum is the adoption of a bear. Adopting a bear, for whom the parent is responsible 24/7, gives parents the opportunity to practice their parenting skills even though they are not with their children.

The Parenting Inside Out program gives parents a way of navigating life that uses healthy, pro-social skills to interact with children, partners, co-parents, officials, friends and family.

The Parenting Inside Out curriculum is available in four versions:
• Prison 90 — 90 hours of instruction
• Prison 60 — 60 hours of instruction
• Community — 48 hours of instruction
• Jail — 20 hours of instruction

Topics covered in the Parenting Inside Out curricula include:
• Communications skills
• Problem solving skills
• Emotion regulation (anger management)
• Child development
• Nurturing children through reading and play
• Non-violent discipline techniques and positive reinforcement
• Adult development
• Transitioning planning and family reintegration

The Parenting Inside Out program includes:
• Complete curriculum manual with lesson plans and facilitation guides
• Supplemental Parenting Coach manual with program research, organizational set up and strategies for teaching specific activities
• A CD with all participant materials — handouts, worksheets, graduation certificates, evaluation tools
• Three day, comprehensive training program that ensures curriculum fidelity

Evidence-Based Criteria
Evidence-based practices are becoming the requirement in corrections. Unfortunately, the term "evidence-based" has been claimed by many programs that do not in fact meet the criteria for evidence-based practices. Many parenting education and skills training interventions have been developed, but few have been tested in a scientifically rigorous fashion.

Parenting Inside Out meets the criteria for an evidence-based program as defined by the Kaufman Best Practices Project (2004). One of the key criteria for earning the designation “evidence-based” is to “have at least one randomized controlled study indicating its efficacy.”

Parenting Inside Out was evaluated in a $2.1 million randomized controlled study funded by the National Institute of Mental Health and conducted by researchers from the Oregon Social Learning Center. The Parent Child Study, which began in 2006, was designed to investigate the effectiveness of Parenting Inside Out as a prison-based Parent Management Training intervention. The study followed 359 mothers and fathers over a five-year period starting 18 months before release and measured a variety of factors from parent-child relationships and parent-caregiver relationships to re-arrest and substance abuse rates.

Study Design
Inmates throughout the state of Oregon were invited to participate in the study; 453 were eligible for the intervention, and 80% of them (N=359) were eligible for the study. Participants were men and women residing in Oregon Department of Corrections institutions that were parents of children ages 3 to 11 and had some role in parenting their children in the past or expected such a role in the future. Of the participants, 50% were men and 41% were racial and/or ethnic minority.

Participants were randomly assigned to Parenting Inside Out or a services as usual control condition, blocking on sex and race/ethnicity. The program was delivered by trained and supervised coaches from an established, community-based nonprofit service agency, Pathfinders of Oregon.

Participants were @#$%& before, during, and after the intervention period, and then followed up to one year after release from prison. Data were collected from:
• Inmate parents
• Children
• Caregivers
• Teachers of inmate's children
• Official school, court, and Department of Corrections records

Trained parenting coaches delivered Parenting Inside Out with high fidelity. Participation in the program was high, as was parent satisfaction.

Analyses were conducted based on Intent to Treat assignment, regardless of participation in the intervention. Multiple imputation procedures were used for missing data. STATA Mixed-Effects Poisson Regression was used for the analyses.

Results have been presented at several national and international research conferences. Initial study results have been accepted for publication in a peer reviewed journal (to be published in 2012). Manuscripts on follow-up study results and on moderators of treatment outcome are in production.

Study Results
• Reduced Recidivism: At one year post release, Parenting Inside Out participants in the study were less likely to have been rearrested (60%), less likely to self-report having been involved in criminal behavior (91%).
• Better Parental Participation: Participants of the program reported more total family contact, were more likely to be involved in the lives of their children, were more likely to use positive reinforcement, and had lower parental stress scores than their peers who did not participate in the Parenting Inside Out program.
• Better Attitude: Parenting Inside Out participants showed a dramatic reductions in depression (measured by the CES-D) when compared with their control group peers. In addition, the class significantly raised their prison adjustment scores as compared to the control group.
• Reduced Substance Abuse: Following release, participants of the program reported substantially less substance abuse (66%) than their peers who did not take Parenting Inside Out classes while incarcerated.

To the Children's Justice Alliance’s knowledge, Parenting Inside Out is the only program for parents involved in the criminal justice system that has proven to reduce recidivism and criminal behavior while improving family relationships and parenting skills in of a significantly sized randomized controlled study.

Contact the Children's Justice Alliance
For more information about the Parenting Inside Out curriculum, pricing packages, and training opportunities, please contact Mindy Clark at 503-977-6399 or mindy@childrensjusticealliance.org.
information taken from: www.parentinginsideout.org and www.childrensjusticealliance.org]]> Jerry Bednarowski Research, Evaluation & Training Sun, 19 Aug 2012 10:17:36 -0400 http://www.ceanational.org/phorum/read.php?16,1669,1669#msg-1669 http://www.ceanational.org/phorum/read.php?16,1669,1669#msg-1669
There is no charge for these webinars - but there is a seating limit - so sign up today!

The Power of Testing: Why, What and Who to @#$%&
Gain an understanding of assessments, proper testing protocol, using results to determine instruction and proof of knowledge.

Raise Your GED® Passing Rate: The Most Often Missed Questions on the GED Tests of Mathematics
Take a look at what questions give test takers the most trouble, and learn some classroom strategies to help your students master these problems.

Raise Your GED® Passing Rate: The Most Often Missed Questions on the GED Tests of Language Arts, Writing
Take a look at what questions give test takers the most trouble, and learn some classroom strategies to help your students master these problems.

The New GED® Test: A First Look
Examine the upcoming changes to the GED Tests and discuss their impact on our learners and instructors.

Reading Comprehension Strategies for the ABE Classroom
Discover how incorporating proven reading strategies into your daily lesson plans can enhance the reading comprehension capabilities of your upper-level ABE learners.

Evidence-Based Writing: What is it and How Do We Teach it?
In this webinar, we will examine evidence based writing, its role in college and career readiness cognitive processes, how to begin teaching it, and writing interventions that result in better writing performance.

Deconstructing the Impact of Common Core Standards on Adult Education
Explore the Common Core Standards Initiative and its impact on instruction, curriculum, professional development, and counseling in the ABE classroom.

Preparing for NRS July 1, 2012 Reporting Changes
Don’t miss this webinar! Review the NRS reporting changes and discover tips on how best to implement them.

It’s Time to Get Social: Why Programs Use Social Media
Learn why your program should use social media to maximize program effectiveness for recruitment, advocacy, fundraising, community awareness, student interaction, and more!

How to Use Social Media: Best Practices and Tips for Adult Ed Programs
Learn how to implement a social media marketing plan when we discuss best practices, helpful tips to drive engagement and track results, and touch on legal considerations.]]> BJ Berquist Research, Evaluation & Training Mon, 14 May 2012 13:05:24 -0400 http://www.ceanational.org/phorum/read.php?16,1662,1662#msg-1662 http://www.ceanational.org/phorum/read.php?16,1662,1662#msg-1662
The Washington State Institute for Public Policy was created by the 1983 Washington Legislature to carry out non-partisan research assignments. The 2009 Legislature directed the Institute to “calculate the return on investment to taxpayers from evidence-based prevention and intervention programs and policies.” The Institute was directed to produce “a comprehensive list of programs and policies that improve . . . outcomes for children and adults in Washington and result in more cost-efficient use of public resources.”

The Washington State Institute for Public Policy identified public policies that have been shown to improve the following outcomes:
? Child maltreatment
? Crime
? Education
? Labor earnings
? Mental health
? Public assistance
? Public health
? Substance abuse

The Institute’s approach to calculating the return on investment to taxpayers from evidence-based prevention and intervention programs included: systematically @#$%& the evidence, calculating cost and benefit, measuring the riskiness of conclusions, and, where possible, providing a portfolio of policy options.

The 2011 update identified correctional education programs as being among the top adult criminal justice programs with the greatest rate of return on investment. Two correctional education programs ranked among the top five best returns on money for adult criminal justice populations. “Correctional Education in Prison” and “Vocational Education in Prison” ranked third and fifth most effective when “Monetary Benefits minus Costs” per participant are calculated.

Background

In the mid-1990s, the legislature began to direct the Institute to undertake comprehensive reviews of “evidence-based” policy strategies. The initial efforts were in juvenile and adult criminal justice.

Several juvenile justice and adult corrections’ programs—not then operating in Washington—that had the potential to reduce crime and save Washington taxpayers money were identified. In subsequent sessions, the legislature used the information to begin a series of policy reforms.

Today, the results of these crime-focused efforts appear to be paying off. Relative to national rates, juvenile crime has dropped in Washington, adult criminal recidivism has declined, total crime is down, and taxpayer criminal justice costs are lower than alternative strategies would have required.

Benefits and Costs of Evidence-Based Public Policies

The report, “Return on Investment: Evidence-based options to improve statewide outcomes,” shows the computations of benefits and costs for 70 programs in ten policy areas. Evaluations of dozens of other programs have been published previously or are in the review process. The entire report is available at: [www.wsipp.wa.gov]. Here are the evaluations of the Adult Criminal Justice Topic Areas and Programs

Topic Area/Program Total Taxpayer Non- Costs Benefits Benefit Risk
Benefits Benefits Taxpayer Minus to Cost (odds of
Benefits Costs Ratio positive value)

Dangerously Mentally Ill Offenders $103,596 $24,391 $79,205 ($31,626) $71,969 $3.28 100%

Drug Offender Sentencing Alternative: drug offenders $28,013 $6,680 $21,333 ($1,511) $26,502 $18.57 99%
Correctional Education in Prison $19,923 $4,785 $15,138 ($1,102) $18,821 $18.11 100%

Electronic Monitoring $17,068 $4,068 $13,000 $1,044 $18,112 n/e 100%

Vocational Education in Prison $19,083 $4,634 $14,449 ($1,537) $17,547 $12.43 100%
Drug Treatment in the Community $15,419 $3,671 $11,748 ($2,102) $13,317 $7.35 100%
Drug Offender Sentencing Alternative: prop. offenders $14,324 $3,410 $10,914 ($1,513) $12,811 $9.47 76%
Mental Health Court $14,230 $3,424 $10,806 ($2,878) $11,352 $4.95 100%
Cognitive-Based Treatment (in prison) $10,741 $2,588 $8,153 ($217) $10,524 $49.55 99%
Drug Treatment in Prison $14,351 $3,467 $10,883 ($3,894) $10,456 $3.69 100%
Intensive Supervision: with treatment $17,521 $4,216 $13,305 ($7,712) $9,809 $2.28 96%
Drug Court $11,750 $2,644 $9,106 ($4,099) $7,651 $2.87 100%
Cognitive-Based Treatment (in the community) $7,739 $1,848 $5,891 ($217) $7,522 $35.70 99%
Work Release $6,466 $1,552 $4,914 ($649) $5,817 $9.97 97%
Correctional Industries in Prison $6,398 $1,546 $4,851 ($1,387) $5,011 $4.63 100%
Community Employment Training/Job Assistance $4,641 $1,104 $3,537 ($132) $4,509 $35.13 100%
Intensive Supervision: surveillance only ($556) ($132) ($424) ($4,050) ($4,606) ($0.14) 10%
Domestic Violence Treatment Programs ($3,724) ($886) ($2,839) ($1,335) ($5,059) ($2.91) 20%]]> Jerry Bednarowski Research, Evaluation & Training Fri, 11 May 2012 09:44:51 -0400 http://www.ceanational.org/phorum/read.php?16,1616,1616#msg-1616 http://www.ceanational.org/phorum/read.php?16,1616,1616#msg-1616
In May 2011, the Institute for Higher Education Policy released an Issue Brief authored by Laura E. Gorgol and Brian Sponsler. The brief entitled, Unlocking Potential: Results of a National Survey of Post-Secondary Education in State Prisons, was the result of a nation-wide survey of education programs for incarcerated individuals.

Forty-three states responded to the survey. CEA Executive Director Steve Steurer and members of CEA participated in the survey and provided valuable commentary on the provision of post-secondary education within prisons

For the purpose of the survey, Post-Secondary Education was defined as encompassing any academic or vocational coursework an incarcerated person takes beyond the high school diploma or equivalent that can be used toward a certificate or an associate’s, bachelor’s, or graduate degree.

Research suggests that 35 to 42 percent of correctional facilities offer some form of Post-Secondary Education (Erisman and Contardo 2005; Stephan 2008). For those who have participated in Post-Secondary Correctional Education, several positive post-release outcomes have been observed, including increased educational attainment levels, reduced recidivism rates, and improved post-release employment opportunities and earnings (Gaes 2008; Meyer et al. 2010; Winterfield et al. 2009).

Despite the positive outcomes associated with Post-Secondary Correctional Education, the brief authors observed that discussion of postsecondary opportunity for the nation’s prison population is notably absent from the top tier of state and federal policy agendas. They feel this lack of top-line policy attention to Post-Secondary Correctional Education is detrimental to the country — postsecondary education has a critical role to play in mitigating challenging social conditions exacerbated by high incarceration levels.

Designed to increase knowledge about how states are providing postsecondary education to incarcerated individuals, this brief summarizes the results of a national survey of state correctional education administrators and presents unique policy relevant information on the availability, administration, and funding of Post-Secondary Correctional Education in state prison systems. A central purpose of the brief is to elevate the policy attention paid to postsecondary opportunities for incarcerated persons.

Key Findings

Participating states reported approximately 71,000 persons enrolled in vocational or academic postsecondary education programs in prisons for academic year 2009-10; 6 percent of the incarcerated population in these states.

• Thirteen high-enrollment states accounted for 86 percent of all incarcerated postsecondary students in the state prison systems included in this study. Wisconsin was one of the high-enrollment states.
• Incarcerated students are not earning two- or four-year postsecondary degrees in significant numbers. Findings illustrate that three out of every four students were enrolled in a vocational or certificate program. Although all types of Post-Secondary Correctional Education are valuable, survey results indicate that most incarcerated students are not on an educational pathway likely to result in academic degree attainment.
• Postsecondary correctional education is delivered primarily through onsite instruction. Survey respondents reported logistical challenges associated with providing education in a prison and recommended technology as one way to improve the delivery of Post-Secondary Correctional Education.
• Security protocols and state statutes were identified as significant barriers to expanding the use of Internet technologies to support the delivery of postsecondary education in prisons.
• A critical challenge facing correctional education administrators is securing funding, a reality that may worsen in coming years because of the financial constraints of state budgets.
• Incarcerated students continue to be denied access to federal and state-based financial aid programs.

Because roughly 95 percent of incarcerated persons are expected to return to society, the authors believe that programs and initiatives designed to increase the likelihood of successful reentry are critical to individuals and to society at large. Postsecondary education has been identified as one factor that facilitates successful reentry. Positive post-release outcomes associated with participation in Post-Secondary Correctional Education include increased educational attainment, reduced recidivism rates, and improved employment opportunities and earnings (Gaes 2008; Meyer et al. 2010; Winterfield et al. 2009) — all factors that support broader policy goals of increasing national educational attainment, broadening the tax base, and reducing public expenditures.

Despite the alignment of Post-Secondary Correctional Education outcomes with national policy priorities and the known benefits of Post-Secondary Correctional Education for individuals, the survey of correctional education administrators reveals that incarcerated persons have limited postsecondary education opportunities, primarily because of federal and state policy choices.

Incarcerated persons are ineligible for nearly all federal and state need-based financial aid programs, are overwhelmingly enrolled in vocational and other nonacademic certificate programs, and are prohibited from taking advantage of Internet-based educational programs and resources. Although the political and moral rationales for Post-Secondary Correctional Education policies are diverse and complex, the outcome is that incarcerated persons have few options for education beyond the secondary level.

On the basis of the results and analysis of our survey, the authors offer three recommendations to facilitate effective policy innovations in the area of Post-Secondary Correctional Education. These recommendations are intended to advance public policy goals of increasing skill and educational acquisition for incarcerated persons and reducing unsustainably high recidivism rates.

Recommendations

1. To address capacity challenges that limit access to postsecondary education in prisons, federal and state statutes and regulations should be revised to support the development and expansion of Internet-based delivery of such education.
2. To increase educational attainment, support economic development, and make efficient use of limited public funding, postsecondary correctional education programs should be closely aligned with state postsecondary education systems and local workforce needs.
3. To support increased access to postsecondary education in prisons, federal and state statutes should be amended to make specific categories of incarcerated persons eligible for need-based financial aid.

The complete brief, Unlocking Potential: Results of a National Survey of Post-Secondary Education in State Prisons, may be found at: [www.ihep.org] May_2011]]> Jerry Bednarowski Research, Evaluation & Training Thu, 19 Jan 2012 10:31:58 -0500 http://www.ceanational.org/phorum/read.php?16,1444,1444#msg-1444 http://www.ceanational.org/phorum/read.php?16,1444,1444#msg-1444 [chronicle.com]]]> Eric Lichtenberger Research, Evaluation & Training Wed, 04 May 2011 11:50:35 -0400 http://www.ceanational.org/phorum/read.php?16,1443,1443#msg-1443 http://www.ceanational.org/phorum/read.php?16,1443,1443#msg-1443 www.ihep.org]

NEWS RELEASE



FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE



CONTACT

Tia T. Gordon
TTG+Partners
202 372 7204
tgordon@ttgpartners.com





EDUCATING THE NATION’S PRISON POPULATION MAY SPUR FUTURE ECONOMIC GROWTH AND REDUCE PUBLIC EXPENSES
New Data Examines How States Provide Postsecondary Correctional Education for Incarcerated Individuals



Washington, D.C., May 4, 2011——Spending for the estimated 2.3 million people who are incarcerated in the United States totals over $52 billion annually. Left without access to education beyond the secondary level, seven in 10 formerly incarcerated persons are more than likely to return to prison within three years—thus, creating additional financial burdens on states as a result of recidivism. As policymakers work to enhance higher education policy, it is critical for them to consider postsecondary correctional education (PSCE) as a possible intervention to help increase educational attainment, generate future economic growth, and reduce public expenditures.

A new report with first-of-its-kind information, Unlocking Potential: Results of a National Survey of Postsecondary Education in State Prisons, is being released today by the Institute for Higher Education Policy (IHEP) aiming to increase the policy attention paid to postsecondary opportunity for incarcerated persons. The study examines data* from 43 states—based on results from a national survey sent to state correctional education administrators—about postsecondary education programs in their prison systems. Areas studied included student enrollments and completions, instructional methods, eligibility requirements, and funding sources.

KEY FINDINGS ABOUT POSTSECONDARY OPPORTUNITIES FOR INCARCERATED INDIVIDUALS



* Approximately 71,000 persons (roughly 6 percent of the total incarcerated population in responding states) are enrolled in vocational or academic postsecondary education programs in prisons for the 2009–10 academic year.

* Thirteen high-enrollment states—those that enroll more than 1,000 incarcerated students—accounted for 86 percent of all incarcerated postsecondary students in the state prison systems included in this study. At the median, high-enrollment systems educated nearly 3,100 students annually.

* Approximately 9,900 incarcerated persons earned a certificate; 2,200 associate’s degrees were awarded; and nearly 400 students earned bachelor’s degrees in the 2009–10 academic year.

* In a marked contrast to national trends in higher education, postsecondary correctional education is delivered primarily through onsite instruction. Only two of the 43 states use Internet-based instructional methods compared with in-class instruction—no high-enrollment states used this technology for program delivery.



* Given that incarcerated students continue to be denied access to federal- and state-based financial aid programs, states are overwhelmingly relying on federal grant programs (most commonly with funding from the Workforce and Community Transitions Training for Incarcerated Individuals program) to support education delivery; 95 percent of responding states use these grant programs.
[www.ihep.org]]]> Eric Lichtenberger Research, Evaluation & Training Wed, 04 May 2011 10:22:12 -0400 http://www.ceanational.org/phorum/read.php?16,1434,1435#msg-1435 http://www.ceanational.org/phorum/read.php?16,1434,1435#msg-1435 I have been trying to track you down. Who knew CEA would be more effective than google? Can you give me a call at your earliest convenience, please? We are needing some guidance on locating some research and I would also like to visit with you about some of your research.
Hope all is well. Looking forward to visiting.
Don Lawrence
(936) 291-4624 (office)
(936) 661-6212 (cell)]]> Don Lawrence Research, Evaluation & Training Thu, 07 Apr 2011 13:13:58 -0400 http://www.ceanational.org/phorum/read.php?16,1434,1434#msg-1434 http://www.ceanational.org/phorum/read.php?16,1434,1434#msg-1434 Here is a short article that was recently published in Corrections Today (see attachment). I've recently made the argument that offender workforce development (transition) programs are extremely necessary if we want to see a greater indirect impact of correctional education on the reduced likelihood of recidivism. Let me know what you think....
Eric Lichtenberger]]> Eric Lichtenberger Research, Evaluation & Training Mon, 04 Apr 2011 10:16:30 -0400 http://www.ceanational.org/phorum/read.php?16,1403,1433#msg-1433 http://www.ceanational.org/phorum/read.php?16,1403,1433#msg-1433 We tended to find that the impact of correctional education on recidivism was more indirect in nature. In other words, correctional education improved employment outcomes, which in turn reduced the likelihood of recidivism (see attachment). In some of our analyses that explored the direct relationship between correctional education and recidivism, the results were sometimes the opposite of what we were hoping to see, especially during downswings in the economy. Honestly, this took me about 5 years to figure out and prove. Let me know if this makes sense.
Eric Lichtenberger]]> Eric Lichtenberger Research, Evaluation & Training Mon, 04 Apr 2011 09:45:41 -0400 http://www.ceanational.org/phorum/read.php?16,1070,1432#msg-1432 http://www.ceanational.org/phorum/read.php?16,1070,1432#msg-1432 Feel free to post your research on this forum or submit it to the Journal of Correctional Education. I'd love to see what you're doing in Wisconsin and I am sure many others would feel the same.
Eric Lichtenberger]]> Eric Lichtenberger Research, Evaluation & Training Mon, 04 Apr 2011 09:32:37 -0400 http://www.ceanational.org/phorum/read.php?16,1403,1431#msg-1431 http://www.ceanational.org/phorum/read.php?16,1403,1431#msg-1431 In some of my previous studies in Virginia that focused on the impact of vocational programs on post-release outcomes, sex offenders, in addition to violent offenders, generally had better employment outcomes. We always assumed that it was somewhat related to the issue of longer sentences that you mentioned above, combined with higher levels of supervision upon release. I'll see if I could round up some of those old studies.
Eric Lichtenberger]]> Eric Lichtenberger Research, Evaluation & Training Mon, 04 Apr 2011 09:29:27 -0400 http://www.ceanational.org/phorum/read.php?16,1070,1411#msg-1411 http://www.ceanational.org/phorum/read.php?16,1070,1411#msg-1411
As a new member to CEA, I am hoping to learn a lot from viewing and listening to you all.

Best regards,

Pat]]> pweaver20 Research, Evaluation & Training Sun, 20 Mar 2011 14:45:32 -0400 http://www.ceanational.org/phorum/read.php?16,1403,1410#msg-1410 http://www.ceanational.org/phorum/read.php?16,1403,1410#msg-1410 Regards,
Pat]]> pweaver20 Research, Evaluation & Training Sun, 20 Mar 2011 14:38:46 -0400 http://www.ceanational.org/phorum/read.php?16,1403,1403#msg-1403 http://www.ceanational.org/phorum/read.php?16,1403,1403#msg-1403
A quote cited in the Journal article by Gerald G. Gaes of the College of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida State University confirms the premise that education, in the long run, saves the state money:
Education for current and former prisoners is a cost-effective solution to reducing reoffending and improving public safety. The effect of education on recidivism has been well demonstrated, and even small reductions in reoffending can have a significant impact when spread across large numbers of participants.

The following research data may be valuable to educators who need justify the cost-effectiveness of their education program:

Recidivism Statistics
Statistics support the claim/hypothesis that educating prisoners contributes significantly to reducing recidivism. General numbers provided by research suggest 50% to 70% re-incarcerate within three years. (Congressional Leaders; Education Newsletter II)
a) Three state recidivism studies made in 1997 by Steuer, Smith, and Tracy, conducted in Maryland, Minnesota, and Ohio involved 3600 men and women inmates released from prison at least three years. The study showed that male and female offenders who participated in education programs while prison reduces re-incarceration by 29%. (Recidivism Rates)
b) A 2007 study of incarceration in Colorado found that recidivism rates of women who participated in vocational programs had a recidivism rate of 8.75%, those who completed their GED, 6.71%, and those who participated in neither a vocational or academic program, 26%. (Recidivism Rates)
c) Another study in 2002 surveyed research in Florida, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Ohio, Texas, Utah, and Virginia. Results indicted that educational programs cut recidivism from 49% to 20%. (Recidivism Rates)
d) “National studies show,” write Keys and Jackson, “that college classes cut recidivism by 30% or more. That would make a good investment for state taxpayers.”
e) A West Virginia study (1999-2000) found dramatic outcomes. Records of 320 adult male inmates discharged in 1973 were followed. At the end of four years, there were 76 recidivists; 55 had not participated in an educational program, only 7 had completed a GED program, and four were college level participants. (Gordon and Weldon)
f) According to the National Correctional Association, in a 2009 report, inmates who earn an AA/AS are 70% less likely to recidivate than those who did not complete a program; a GED, 25% less likely to recidivate; and those who earn a vocational certificate, 14.6% less likely to recidivate. (Education Newsletter 1)
g) A recent U.S. Department of Justice report says that “Prison-based education is the single most effective tool for lowering recidivism. According to the National Institute of Justice Report to the U.S. Congress, prison education is far more effective at reducing recidivism that boot camps, shock incarceration or vocational training.” The report goes on to say that “Other studies sponsored by the Federal Bureau of Prisons find that . . . the more education programs successfully completed for each six months confirmed, the lower the recidivism rates. The exact figures indicating these inverse recidivism rates for degree recipients were: Associates (13.7%), Baccalaureates (5.6%), Masters (0%). (Education Newsletter II)

Works Cited
“Congressional Leaders Take on Recidivism and Corrections Spending.” Correctional Education Association Web (Linda A, web posting). Feb 4, 2010.
“Education as Crime Prevention,” Education Services Newsletter, Issue II. NDOC. Web. Spring, 2009. 2-3.
Education Services Newsletter, Issue I. NDOC. Web. Winter, 2009. n.pag.
Gordon, Howard R.D., and Bracie Weldon. “The Impact of Career and Technical Education Programs on Adult Offenders.” (Abstract). Journal of Correctional Education. Dec., 2003. n.pag. Print.
Keys, Shannon Lydel, and Everett Jackson. “Funding Prison College Programs Would Cut Recidivism and Save Money.” Detroit Free Press. Jan. 7, 2010. n.pag Web 4 March 2010.
“Recidivism Rates of Women Offenders and Participation of Education Programs in Prisons.” Applied Research Project. 28 April, 2008. n.pag. Print]]> Jerry Bednarowski Research, Evaluation & Training Wed, 16 Mar 2011 23:31:45 -0400 http://www.ceanational.org/phorum/read.php?16,1359,1359#msg-1359 http://www.ceanational.org/phorum/read.php?16,1359,1359#msg-1359
In the recent American Correctional Association Corrections Today magazine is an article that can help you to explain to legislators, media and the public why investing in correctional education is so important for everyone. The article called Top Nine Reasons to Support Correctional Education Programs is authored by Stephen J. Steurer, CEA Executive Director; John Linton, Director of Office of Correctional Education, Office of Vocational and Adult Education for the U.S. Department of Education; John Nally, Director of Education for the Indiana Department of Correction; and Susan Lockwood, Juvenile Education Coordinator for the Indiana Department of Correction.

These nine reasons cited in research are the most important that criminal justice decision-makers should consider when planning correctional programs and budgets in these tight economic times:
1. Education is an excellent reentry tool
2. Inmates understand the importance of education for their own success in life
3. Education has deep roots in America prison history
4. Academic education and vocational education reduce recidivism and support employability after release
5. Education is much more effective in reducing future crime than building prisons
6. From a humanistic viewpoint, education is the right thing to do
7. Education is the foundation for the success in other important program areas
8. The true impact on recidivism may be seriously underestimated
9. Education is effective as a population control tool

You may read the entire article in the August issue of Corrections Today magazine.]]> Jerry Bednarowski Research, Evaluation & Training Wed, 17 Nov 2010 11:53:22 -0500 http://www.ceanational.org/phorum/read.php?16,1357,1357#msg-1357 http://www.ceanational.org/phorum/read.php?16,1357,1357#msg-1357
“The term ‘cost effective’ is a mantle that rests well on correctional education,” is the point that Mickey Kaiser asserts in his article “Correctional Education, Because It Works” that was published in the August 2010 issue of Corrections Today magazine.

Mickey observes, “Some families pass on the shackles of incarceration like heirlooms,” but then goes on to site research that shows correctional education is more effective than any other type of correctional program in breaking the intergenerational cycle of incarceration and, in the long run protecting the public’s safety.

To back up point, Mickey quotes the conclusions of Audrey Bazos and Jessica Hausman from their 2004 study, Correctional Education as a Crime Control Program. “They reported that $1 million spent on correctional education prevents 600 new crimes, while that same money invested in incarceration prevents 350 crimes.” Their study indicates “every $1 million spent on correctional education yields a savings of $1.6 million in a state’s re-incarceration costs.” They conclude, “an expansion of educational opportunities may be corrections most viable alternative.”

In Wisconsin specifically, Bazos and Hausman found a 20% reduction in recidivism in offenders who completed an educational program. They found that the cost of correctional education would break even with a 6% reduction in recidivism.

In his article, Mickey shows how the disproportionately high crime rates in major urban areas are linked to high school dropout rates. This not only has an effect on the life of the offender, but also his family and the community.

In Richard J. Coley and Paul E. Barton’s 2006 study, Locked Up and Locked Out – An Educational Perspective on the U.S. Prison Population, they contend that the most effective way of reducing the chances of an offender’s children falling into a life of criminal behavior is to educate the offender in the skills required “to return to society as self-supporting, responsible adults.”

Unfortunately, Mickey found that a significant portion of inmates fail to meet their vocational and educational needs during their incarceration. A 2005 Wisconsin DOC report showed that 52% of inmates released from 1999-2004 failed to meet their vocational need and 27% did not meet their educational need. The majority failed to meet their need due to waiting lists or program unavailability.

In addition to increasing academic and vocational skills, correctional education programs have a “normalizing” effect on offenders. In his 1995 study Prison Education Program Participation and Recidivism: A Test of the Normalization Hypothesis, Miles D. Harer concluded that this “normalizing” effect of correctional education programs “increases prison safety, reduces recidivism, nurtures pro-social norms, and negates the effects of “prisonization.”

You may read Mickey Kaiser’s complete article in the August 2010 issue of Corrections Today magazine or may contact him at michael.kaiser@wisconsin.gov .]]> Jerry Bednarowski Research, Evaluation & Training Wed, 17 Nov 2010 11:49:26 -0500 http://www.ceanational.org/phorum/read.php?16,1070,1184#msg-1184 http://www.ceanational.org/phorum/read.php?16,1070,1184#msg-1184
I am not sure if this is still an active thread, but I will give it a try. As for research, if we are to conduct our own, can we submit it to CEA? I find that with any kind of public funding, there is a need to "justify your existence" by producing data. I know of a school district here in Wiscsonsin that runs a class and gives graduate credit for those conducting research on their own practice. If I were to do that, is that something I can submit to be published or is there a procedure that I need to follow?

Thanks!

Jen Simpson
ABE Teacher
Waupun Correctional Institution
Waupun, WI]]> jsimpson1971 Research, Evaluation & Training Tue, 13 Jul 2010 14:05:11 -0400 http://www.ceanational.org/phorum/read.php?16,1172,1172#msg-1172 http://www.ceanational.org/phorum/read.php?16,1172,1172#msg-1172 murray ellison Research, Evaluation & Training Tue, 29 Jun 2010 10:20:47 -0400 http://www.ceanational.org/phorum/read.php?16,1070,1137#msg-1137 http://www.ceanational.org/phorum/read.php?16,1070,1137#msg-1137
Sorry about the delay in responding! I too would like to see another multi state study. I thought the last time I saw you (Denver 2008) there were three state reps willing to give it a whirl. I suppose that never got off the ground.
We're going to start a study here in Western Australia sometime in 2010. The research proposal has yet to get final approvea but all the 'players' seem to be supportive and the planets seem to be aligning for us to go ahead- fingers crossed.

So long as we have a forum to discuss things I'm not bothered about how many SIG's we have. My only preference is that we have more international interaction between the Associations (CEA-ACEA-EPEA) as its appears the North American based correctional stakeholders have a much healthier research base.

Well hope you're traveling well, take care and keep in touch.]]> baysray Research, Evaluation & Training Wed, 19 May 2010 01:22:22 -0400 http://www.ceanational.org/phorum/read.php?16,1125,1125#msg-1125 http://www.ceanational.org/phorum/read.php?16,1125,1125#msg-1125 * Adult might encompass Parenting, Transition & Re-Entry, Adult Research,
Post Secondary Education, Student Affiliations and Female Offenders.
* Youth might encompass Juvenile Education, Literacy, Arts, Special Education...
* Administrative might encompass state and school administrators, reaserch and
legislation.
Please provide feedback whether you are a SIG Chair or CEA Member. I will need to provide recommendations to the CEA Executive Board by June 15 and the President's Council at the upcoming July conference.
Also, please note a change in my home email to: bluemur@verizon.net
Thanks

Dr. Murray Ellison
CEA President's Council Chairman]]> murray ellison Research, Evaluation & Training Wed, 12 May 2010 08:43:31 -0400 http://www.ceanational.org/phorum/read.php?16,1070,1070#msg-1070 http://www.ceanational.org/phorum/read.php?16,1070,1070#msg-1070 Eric Lichtenberger]]> Eric Lichtenberger Research, Evaluation & Training Mon, 21 Dec 2009 11:42:02 -0500 http://www.ceanational.org/phorum/read.php?16,1056,1056#msg-1056 http://www.ceanational.org/phorum/read.php?16,1056,1056#msg-1056 murrayellison Research, Evaluation & Training Tue, 17 Nov 2009 18:26:16 -0500 http://www.ceanational.org/phorum/read.php?16,965,965#msg-965 http://www.ceanational.org/phorum/read.php?16,965,965#msg-965 Application deadline: July 20, 2009
NIJ is accepting applications for the Building and Enhancing Criminal Justice Researcher-Practitioner Partnerships solicitation. NIJ is interested in funding multiple projects in support of criminal justice researcher-practitioner partnerships as well as capturing, in detail, relevant accounts of previous and current criminal justice researcher-practitioner collaborations. (NIJ)

[www.ncjrs.gov]

Forwarded from NCJRS]]> BJ Berquist Research, Evaluation & Training Mon, 15 Jun 2009 19:32:32 -0400 http://www.ceanational.org/phorum/read.php?16,949,949#msg-949 http://www.ceanational.org/phorum/read.php?16,949,949#msg-949 Thanks
Murray Ellison
CEA President's Council Chairman
email: bluemur@comcast.net
and additional new email: mellison@edaff.com]]> murrayellison Research, Evaluation & Training Mon, 08 Jun 2009 12:13:40 -0400 http://www.ceanational.org/phorum/read.php?16,873,880#msg-880 http://www.ceanational.org/phorum/read.php?16,873,880#msg-880
Dr. Ellison was my supervisor at the time we started giving the test, so he remembers as it was his idea to begin with. (Hi, Murray!)]]> LindaA Research, Evaluation & Training Wed, 29 Apr 2009 14:36:25 -0400