The Effectiveness of Prison Programs on Inmates

Kyle R. Toffolo
April 28, 2014
Dr. Hassett-Walker, Senior Seminar
CJ 4600 Section 03
Spring 2014






The Effects of Prison Programs on Inmates 1

Introduction
In most modern countries, serious offenses result in typically one main consequence for
the offender: incarceration. The offenders then become known as prisoners and spend their time
locked away with nothing but time and their fellow prisoners. These inmates are then presented
with a choice with what to do with their time, either spending it honing their criminal skills with
other offenders, or using their time constructively with the prisons programs. This paper reviews
the impact of various educational programs offered in penitentiaries on prisoners and recidivism
rates.
As the United States represents 5% of the worlds population and currently incarcerates
over 20% of the worlds prison population, research has been tasked to try to identify why this
country alone has the highest amount of institutionalized and repeat offenders (Esperian 2010).
The general consensus is that by putting small time offenders in such a high stress environment,
like federal penitentiaries, they become dependent on illegitimate means to ascertain their goals
after release. Therefore, many studies have enacted to show if using their incarcerated time
constructively will help the rate of recidivism (Esperian 2010).
Depending on which facility an inmate is sentenced to, there is a wide variety of
programs that are offered. If the inmate is eligible for these programs due to their behavior, they
were eligible to qualify for the following programs hosted at federal and state penitentiaries:
English as a Second Language (ESL), Prison-Based Animal Programs, Prison Reading
Programs, Higher Education programs, and Faith programs. However, research still begs the
question as to how effective are these rehabilitative programs for the inmates who participate.
The Effects of Prison Programs on Inmates 2

Literature Review
Animal Programs
A survey was mailed to the top administrator of every states department of corrections
throughout the United States. This questionnaire concluded that forty-six states (92%) in the
country currently implemented a Prison-Based Animal Program (PAPs). In the canine models,
the prisoners who participated were allowed to socialize and train puppies, which after their
maturity were then sent off to advance training for service animals (e.g., drug detection,
explosive detection, Seeing Eye school) Furst (2006).
In additional facilities, homeless animals were also used with prison programs in an effort
to provide creature comforts to the inmates who qualified, and remove them from the streets of
the cities. Both of these throw-away populations were put together in an effort to create a win-
win situation out of their relationship as stated by Furst (2006). The benefits of this program
have shown dramatically in the emotional wellbeing of inmates, and the only negative aspect
found, is the transition of prisons to adapt this style of program. 60 out of the 61 sites that
recommended the PAP programs have shown in increase in prisoner morale, as well as a decline
in the offenders recidivism rate for those who participated in the programs.
Faith-Based Programs
Most prisons offer religious services to their inmates of various beliefs, those inmates
who are devoted in their practices are thought to offend less than those who do not attend these
services and programs. The method used to conduct my research was a combination of official
records of the prisons, and self-reported surveys of inmates from August 2004 and October 2005
The Effects of Prison Programs on Inmates 3

(Camp, Daggett, Kwon, and Klein-Saffran 2008). Another method used for this program were
random samples following the Maryland Scientific Methods Scale (SMS) which is widely used
in criminology for assessing scholarly works (Dodson, Cabage, and Klenowski 2011).
The findings of both studies were that faith-based programs when introduced to inmates
who take a proactive approach to their teachings and regularly attend church are less likely to
reoffend or engage in criminal behavior. In order to maintain the information about these studies
is still current, 3 year follow up surveys were conducted to see if the programs were still
effective after their release. The information on the follow up surveys showed that the program
maintained long-term effects according to Dodson, Cabage, and Klenowski (2011).
Educational Programs
A Youthful Offender Program (YOP) in North Carolina evaluated 369 students in their
education programs via observations from instructors, case managers, correctional officers,
former program participants, and interviews. They were given closed-ended questionnaires
during their program and after in an effort to reduce recidivism and establish consequences to
oppositional behavior. The NC YOP was able to conclude that the expansion and growth of their
higher education programs has shown that participants showed a 19% reduction in their current
recidivism rate against the normal 49% rate (Anders, Noblit 2011).
According to Esperians (2010) research, in 2002 surveys were sent to Florida, Maryland,
Massachusetts, New York, Ohio, Texas, Utah and Virginia indicating that after inmates were
enrolled in higher educational programs, the recidivism rate dropped from 49% to 20 %. He had
also found that the National Correctional Association released in their report of 2009; inmates
The Effects of Prison Programs on Inmates 4

who earned their AA/AS were 70% less likely to recidivate, those with a GED, 25% less likely,
and those with a vocational certificate 14.6% less likely to recidivate.
Family Reading Programs
Prison Reading Programs for Incarcerated Parents and their children are one of the more
beneficial programs, due to the fact that they not only help the inmate, but their family as well.
These special programs are used as incentive for good behavior, and have been proven to reduce
recidivism and help the reintegration of the inmate and their family back into their new
communities (Blumbers, Griffin 2013).
Incarcerated parents are enrolled in a 14-week course with a 1-hour live feed video chat
sessions with their children. These programs help reestablish their roles as parents, reassure
children of their parents love, and reassure their children's goals in school. The research from
testimonies of 16,084 children have attested to the multiple benefits of this program, and with
over 32,375 family connections, the hope for even more of these programs is even more crucial
for the rehabilitation of both the incarcerated and their families according to Blumbers and
Griffin (2013).In addition to the benefits of the family, the research of Dillon and Colling (2010)
followed the progress of 250 female inmates in Montana and the effects of writing programs and
their rehabilitation. Their research proved a significant increase in morale and psychological tests
proving the mental benefits of their program.
In summary, what is known from the literature reviewed is that prison programs have
shown a positive effect on recidivism. What is missing is federal funds for pilot program(s) for
The Effects of Prison Programs on Inmates 5

low-risk violators as well as people whose crimes are linked to alcohol or drugs Prison Pilot
Program B6 (2009). What is missing is the data proving how effective these programs truly are.
Research Design
The research design I will use to answer my research question is the student survey
method. I will approach students in spring 2014 classes and fraternity meetings, giving them the
survey for the convenience of time and quantity. The sample size will be 80 students comprised
of 40 criminal justice and 40 non-criminal justice majors. Obtaining subjects consent will be
through a written consent form in duplicate; this way myself and each subject can obtain a copy
of the paperwork. My dependent variable is the rate of recidivism for inmates. Questions nine
and ten reflect on the rate of recidivism in the opinions of the research subjects. My independent
variables are the four different types of programs offered to inmates in the prisons. They are the
Animal programs, the Faith-based programs, the Educational programs, and the Family Reading
programs. Question six in my survey asks which of these programs are the most effective type.
Data Analysis
After surveying the 80 Kean University students, the information taken from their
surveys was inputted into the SPSS program. Depending on the variables, the tests I used
included: frequencies, descriptives, correlations, and chi square tests for my quantitative data.




The Effects of Prison Programs on Inmates 6




Results
Section 1: Sample Demographics

Table 1: Age of Participants (Descriptives)


What is your age

Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 18-22 52 65.0 65.0 65.0
22-26 19 23.8 23.8 88.8
26-30 4 5.0 5.0 93.8
30+ 5 6.3 6.3 100.0
Total 80 100.0 100.0



As seen in Table 1, the variable age ranged from a minimum of 18 years to a maximum of 30+
years.


Table 2: Gender (Frequency)


What is your sex

Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Male 32 40.0 40.0 40.0
Female 48 60.0 60.0 100.0
The Effects of Prison Programs on Inmates 7

What is your sex

Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Male 32 40.0 40.0 40.0
Female 48 60.0 60.0 100.0
Total 80 100.0 100.0




As seen in Table 2, my sample was split between 60% females and 40% males.


Table 3: Race/Ethnicity (Frequency)


What is your race/ethnicity

Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid African American 25 31.3 31.3 31.3
Caucasian 37 46.3 46.3 77.5
Asian/Pacific Islander 3 3.8 3.8 81.3
Hispanic/Latino 14 17.5 17.5 98.8
Other 1 1.3 1.3 100.0
Total 80 100.0 100.0




As seen in Table 3, not shown in table format, but the surveys were divided up evenly between
40 criminal justice majors and 40 non-criminal justice majors. The non-criminal justice majors
predominately included Psychology, Sociology and OT.

The Effects of Prison Programs on Inmates 8

Section 2: Dependent Variables
Table 4: Perceived Mention of Recidivism (frequency)




Descriptive Statistics

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
number of mentions of
recidivism
80 .00 2.00 .7250 .65555
Valid N (listwise) 80

As seen above in Table 4, the number of mentions of recidivism yielded a minimum of 0, a
maximum of 2, and a mean of .7250. Approximately every 3 out of four surveys mentioned
recidivism one time in the essay portion.
The main words that were used to articulate the dependent variable were: recidivism, re-offend,
released, and staying out of jail/prison in the right context.

Table 5 Inmates Who Re-Offend

What percentage of inmates re-offend after they are released

Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 25% 24 30.0 30.0 30.0
50% 28 35.0 35.0 65.0
More than 50% 28 35.0 35.0 100.0
Total 80 100.0 100.0


Table 6: Inmates Who Re-Offend After Participation


What percentage of inmates re-offend after participating in prison programs

Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 10% 17 21.3 21.3 21.3
25% 39 48.8 48.8 70.0
50% 19 23.8 23.8 93.8
The Effects of Prison Programs on Inmates 9

More than 50% 5 6.3 6.3 100.0
Total 80 100.0 100.0


As seen above in table 5, the percentage of students surveyed all voted evenly (within 5 percent)
of the percentages of inmates that re-offend after they are released. In table 6, that changes where
just fewer than 50% of the students surveyed believed that only 25% on inmates who participate
in prison programs re-offend. This table stated that 70.1% of students feel that <25%^ of inmates
re-offend after participating in the programs offered for their rehabilitation.


Section 3a: Independent Variables
Table 7: Perceived Effectiveness of Prison Programs (X1)

Descriptive Statistics

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
number mentions of
effectiveness of programs
79 .00 3.00 1.4557 .76456
Valid N (listwise) 79



As seen above in Table 7, the number of mentions of the effectiveness of prison programs
yielded a minimum of 0, a maximum of 3, and a mean of 1.4557. Approximately every 2 surveys
mentioned the effectiveness of the program 3 times in the essay portion.
The main words that were used to articulate the independent variable were: strong effect by a
clear majority followed by betters themselves, benefit to community/society, and a simple yes in
a few surveys.
Table 8: Perceived Mentions of Prison Programs(X2)


Descriptive Statistics

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
number of prison programs
mentioned
80 .00 6.00 1.0875 1.09306
The Effects of Prison Programs on Inmates 10

Descriptive Statistics

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
number of prison programs
mentioned
80 .00 6.00 1.0875 1.09306
Valid N (listwise) 80




As seen above in Table 8, the number of mentions of prison programs yielded a minimum of 0, a
maximum of 6, and a mean of 1.0875. This accounts for approximately 1 mention of a prison
program per survey.
The main words that were used to articulate the independent variable were: prison programs as a
whole for an overwhelming majority, followed by education programs, and animal therapy
programs.



Table 9: Allowance of Inmates to Participate in Programs

Inmates should be allowed to participate in programs to better themselves.

Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Strongly Disagree 5 6.3 6.3 6.3
Disagree 3 3.8 3.8 10.0
Agree 36 45.0 45.0 55.0
Strongly Agree 36 45.0 45.0 100.0
Total 80 100.0 100.0


As seen above in table 9, the majority of those surveyed voted either in favor of agree or strongly
agree proving that the majority of students feel inmates should be allowed to participate in prison
programs to better themselves. Only a small percent 10.1% voted that inmates should not be
allowed to participate in these programs.




The Effects of Prison Programs on Inmates 11


Table 10: Re-offending after Rehabilitation
Inmates who participate in prison rehabilitation programs are less likely to re-offend

Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Strongly Disagree 4 5.0 5.0 5.0
Disagree 20 25.0 25.0 30.0
Agree 51 63.7 63.7 93.8
Strongly Agree 5 6.3 6.3 100.0
Total 80 100.0 100.0


As seen in table 10, a clear majority of 70% of students surveyed agreed or strongly agreed that
inmates who participate in prison rehabilitation programs were less likely to re-offend. This
statistic proves that a super majority believe in prison programs help to reduce the rate of
recidivism.


Part 4: SIGNIFICANCE TESTING for testing your research
question or hypothesis)

4A.



Table 11: Recidivism Rate after Incarceration
What percentage of inmates re-offend after they are released * What is your major Crosstabulation

What is your major
Total Criminal Justice
Non-Criminal
Justice
What percentage of inmates re- 25% Count 13 11 24
The Effects of Prison Programs on Inmates 12

offend after they are released % within What is your major 32.5% 27.5% 30.0%
50% Count 8 20 28
% within What is your major 20.0% 50.0% 35.0%
More than 50% Count 19 9 28
% within What is your major 47.5% 22.5% 35.0%
Total Count 40 40 80
% within What is your major 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Table 12:








Chi-Square Tests

Value df
Asymp. Sig. (2-
sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 8.881
a
2 .012
Likelihood Ratio 9.132 2 .010
Linear-by-Linear Association 1.220 1 .269
N of Valid Cases 80

.

As seen above in tables 11 and 12, my findings were significant in that there is a large
differentiation of reoffending inmates and their recidivism rate with criminal justice students
against non-criminal justice students. Half of the surveyed population of non-criminal justice
students felt that 50% of inmates will re-offend after they are initially released. The criminal
justice students felt that more than 50% of inmates would re-offend after release. Both of these
statistics prove that the majority of students feel that alone the Prison system itself is not
effective in the rehabilitation of prisoners.
Table 13: Re-offending Inmates after Program Participation
What percentage of inmates re-offend after participating in prison programs * What is your major Crosstabulation

What is your major Total
The Effects of Prison Programs on Inmates 13

Criminal Justice
Non-Criminal
Justice
What percentage of inmates re-
offend after participating in
prison programs
10% Count 8 9 17
% within What is your major 20.0% 22.5% 21.3%
25% Count 17 22 39
% within What is your major 42.5% 55.0% 48.8%
50% Count 11 8 19
% within What is your major 27.5% 20.0% 23.8%
More than 50% Count 4 1 5
% within What is your major 10.0% 2.5% 6.3%
Total Count 40 40 80
% within What is your major 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%




Table 14:
Chi-Square Tests

Value df
Asymp. Sig. (2-
sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 2.974
a
3 .396
Likelihood Ratio 3.105 3 .376
Linear-by-Linear Association 1.822 1 .177
N of Valid Cases 80

a. 2 cells (25.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count
is 2.50.

As seen above in tables 13 and 14, my findings were not significant. Both Criminal Justice and non-
Criminal Justice Students when surveyed were pretty similar in terms of the percentage of inmates re-
offending after participating in prison programs.

4B.
Table 15:
Correlations
The Effects of Prison Programs on Inmates 14


Y number of
mentions of
recidivism
X1 number
mentions of
effectiveness of
programs
Y number of mentions of
recidivism
Pearson Correlation 1 -.165
Sig. (2-tailed)

.147
N 80 79
X1 number mentions of
effectiveness of programs
Pearson Correlation -.165 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .147

N 79 79

As seen above in table 15, my correlation findings were both not significant and negative overall.
There are no relations between the number of mentions of recidivism and the number of
mentions of the effectiveness of the programs in my surveys.



4D.
Table 16: Mentions of Recidivism and Programs Correlation
Correlations

Y number of
mentions of
recidivism
X2 number of
prison programs
mentioned
Y number of mentions of
recidivism
Pearson Correlation 1 .105
Sig. (2-tailed)

.355
N 80 80
X2 number of prison programs
mentioned
Pearson Correlation .105 1
Sig. (2-tailed) .355

N 80 80


As seen above in table 16, my correlation findings were both not significant and negative overall.
There are no relations between the number of mentions of recidivism and the number of
mentions of the effectiveness of the programs in my surveys.
The Effects of Prison Programs on Inmates 15


Table 17: Dependent variables by yes/no something re: educated inmates


N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error
number of mentions of
recidivism
Disagree 24 .6667 .63702 .13003
Agree 56 .7500 .66742 .08919
Total 80 .7250 .65555 .07329
What percentage of inmates re-
offend after they are released
Disagree 24 3.1250 .74089 .15123
Agree 56 3.0179 .84188 .11250
Total 80 3.0500 .80975 .09053
What percentage of inmates re-
offend after participating in
prison programs
Disagree 24 2.2500 .84699 .17289
Agree 56 2.1071 .82415 .11013
Total 80 2.1500 .82830 .09261
All ANOVAs were non-significant.




4D
Table 18: Most Beneficial program
Which type of prison program do you think has the greatest positive effect on inmates

Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Family Bonding 19 23.8 23.8 23.8
Faith 13 16.3 16.3 40.0
Educational 41 51.2 51.2 91.3
Animal Therapy 7 8.8 8.8 100.0
Total 80 100.0 100.0



Table 19: Education to Incarceration
Educated individuals (high school +) are less likely to be incarcerated
The Effects of Prison Programs on Inmates 16


Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Disagree 24 30.0 30.0 30.0
Agree 56 70.0 70.0 100.0
Total 80 100.0 100.0

As seen in table 9, more than 50% of all participants found the Educational prison program to be
the most effective when in regards to recidivism rate. This is complimented by table 10 which
shows that 70% of all students surveyed believe that education is directly linked to illegal
behavior. This variable for my research added a new criteria to the survey, of which type of
program is the most effective, not just prison programs as a whole


Discussion
To return to my research question, how effective are prison programs for recidivism. I
found support for my question. The majority of my research showed that prison programs were
effective for the rehabilitation of inmates and the reduction of recidivism. Additionally, I
contributed to the literature by asking my subjects about which program they believed to be the
most effective. My research proved that of all the programs listed, the educational programs
showed the most positive effectiveness.
All studied have limitations, and mine is no exception. When listing the ages, I should
have included a space for each surveyor to write in their age to get a more specific accounting as
opposed to groups of ages. For the written portion of the surveys, I would have liked to include a
better-rounded article that better highlighted the different programs available to inmates, to give
a more unbiased answer in the responses.
If I were to take up this research question again in graduate school, I would contact local
penitentiaries and gather information about what programs they offer inmates, and the access to
the information of which inmates do re-offend verse those who have not yet entered back into the
correctional system. That statistical data would prove my results and give my research a
definitive answer for just that one prison.


References
The Effects of Prison Programs on Inmates 17

Anders, A. D., Ph.D., & Noblit, G. W., Ph.D. (2011). Understanding Effective Higher Education
Programs in Prisons: Considerations from the Incarcerated Individuals Program in North
Carolina. The Journal of Correctional Education, 62(2), 77-93.
Blumbers, D. M., & Griffin, D. A. (2013). Family Connections: The Importance of Prison
Reading Programs for Incarcerated Parents and Their Children. Journal of Offender
Rehabilitation, 52, 254-269. doi: 10.1080/10509674.2013.782773
Camp, S., Daggett, D., Kwon, O., & Kleinsaffran, J. (2008). The effect of faith program
participation on prison misconduct: The Life Connections Program. Journal of Criminal
Justice, 36(5), 389-395. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2008.07.004
Dillon, L., MS, MEd, & Colling, K., Phd. (2010). Effectiveness of Written Materials in a
Rehabilitative Program for Female Offenders: A Case Study at the Montana Women's
Prison. The Journal of Correctional Education, 61(4), 335-347.
Dodson, K. D., Cabage, L. N., & Klenowski, P. M. (2011). An Evidence-Based Assessment of
Faith-Based Programs: Do Faith-Based Programs Work to Reduce Recidivism?
Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 50(6), 367-383. doi: 10.1080/10509674.2011.582932
Esperian, J. H. (2010). The effect of Prison Education Programs on Recidivism. The Journal of
Correctional Education, 61(4), 316-334.
Furst, G. (2006). Prison-Based Animal Programs: A National Survey. The Prison Journal, 86(4),
407-430. doi: 10.1177/0032885506293242
Prison Pilot Program." (Editorial). Las Vegas Review Journal. 17 April, 2009. B 6. Print.