the events and changes that matter; it is what these events and changes mean to the people involved” (McNeill, 2006, p.47). Education can and should mean different things to different people. As the interviewees in this study indi- cated, it can mean different things to the same people at various points in their educational journey and life course. Analysed in this framework, education can play an important role in encouraging an individual to move away from a life of crime, not just to desist from break- ing the law, but developing social and human capital essential to achieve this, and contributing to their com- munity after they have served their time. Linking edu- cation to measurements around recidivism and rehabili- tation can corrode the integrity of education, especially as educational programmes in prison settings “often operate within shifting policy environments and are themselves frequently the subject of contest and contro- versy” (Higgins, 2004, p.246). If prisoneducation is not to follow changing penal ideologies, or get em- broiled in “authoritarian” rehabilitation agendas, it must, define its own objectives based on educational principles and be cautious about adopting or adapting to the vagrancies of changing penal policy if these are inimical to the objectives of pedagogy.
Outside the prison walls continual transformation takes place in terms of knowledge, new technologies and communication tools. Education of convicts allows them to follow the development of technology and ever changing reality. The lack of knowledge of foreign lan- guages, new technologies and the lack of formal certificates to confirm skills and qualifications can condemn convicts to social exclusion and – with a high probability – to the return to prison. It is also essential to develop good practice of self-education and learning habits in convicts. In our contemporary world it is difficult to manage without extending one’s knowledge in numer- ous fields. It is possible to underline the need of involving local communities and employers into the activities focused on prisoneducation. A good solution might be also workshops or training courses run by representatives of employment offices and agencies. Obligatory educa- tion and course attendance for convicts also seems to be a reasonable idea. Now education is provided to convicts only upon their own request, and it is optional. Such solutions may directly contribute to the employment of convicts and establishment of social relations after they leave prison. Taking all these facts into consideration, it is possible to understand the value and pur- pose of prisoneducation both in its social and individual aspects.
relationship, and lack of study space, unsympathetic inmates and long waiting list in available places. Financial challenges cannot be over emphasized in fact Tolbet Klein and Pedroso (2006) observe that due to resource constraints not all inmates eligible for educational services are able to enroll. There are many other factors that would have a direct bearing on the external efficiency of prisoneducation as noted by Whitney (2009) such as access, turnover of population and segregation, lack of remedial schooling prior to high school level instructions to bring inmates up to speed, security issues and remote site that pose transportation problems for teachers. This research focused on finding out if such challenges face prisons in Kiambu County thus compromising the influence prisoneducation has on recidivism and to find out the possible remedies.
Prisons can play a significant role in enacting European policy surrounding prisoners’ rights to education. They can contribute to the rehabilitation of prisoners by encouraging them to engage in meaningful educational experiences that are not just limited to those associated with ‘employability’. The facilitation of this wider curriculum can come from a profession of prison educators resourced, trained and embraced not just by leading practitioners within the field but also by a wider educational community of teachers, teacher educators, researchers, publishers and policy makers. However in England barriers to high quality education exist for most prisoners and are compounded by fragmentation and differentiation. Provision varies depending on the length of incarceration, the type of crime, the type of provider and the location of the prisoner. Those on remand or receiving hospital care receive little or no access to any form of prisoneducation whatsoever. Prisoneducation is facilitated by a ‘Cinderella’ profession isolated from the professional recognition, accreditation and remuneration of the wider teaching profession. The characteristic ambiguity in England about what constitutes ‘education’ or ‘training’ is one that is exacerbated by economism and political sensitivity to penal populism. Such ambiguity provides a space into which the restructuring of prisoneducation risks being determined by discourses associated with punishment and retribution, rather than rehabilitation. Notes
This section examines publications which have reviewed the cost-effectiveness of prisoneducation and training interventions. The intention is to map and draw together findings and conclusions from existing studies that may throw light on this issue. Published documents written in the English language were considered and consisted of: guidance documents on the evaluation of prisoneducation and training systems; reviews of the effectiveness of interventions; and investigations into the cost-effectiveness of interventions. As the review consisted of reports in the English language, the reports considered were mainly from the UK, although evidence from Sweden and Norway was also considered. In contrast to the remainder of this report, which focuses only on sources from within Europe, documentation from the United States was also taken into account for this theme, in order to compensate for the lack of European research and evidence on this issue. The studies reviewed were produced by a range of different authors including: national government departments; research institutes; academic journals; and organisations which promote adult learning. It is worth noting at the outset that establishing the cost-effectiveness of an intervention can be a challenging (and technical) process, requiring significant investment in evaluation. As will be discussed below, cost benefit analysis allows an analyst to place values on a number of hard to measure outcomes but the measurement of some outcomes will be beyond the scope of even this very broad type of economic analysis. It is for this reason that the results of economic analysis should be considered alongside qualitative data to form a broader picture which can help to better inform policy makers in their decision making.
demand for mobility and flexibility in learning, at the same time it excludes significant portions of the student population including incarcerated students (Aceves et al., 2011). Because of this, incarcerated students have fewer options than ever before. Currently, supporting incarcerated students to successfully undertake university or other distance education studies, requires education officers at correctional centres to spend a great deal of time liaising with committed and sympathetic individuals in universities or other education or training providers, carry out the online research that students need to fulfil the demands of the course, and then print out that information for the students. As a consequence of these demands, the quality and provision of higher education initiatives to correctional centres is largely dependent on the goodwill and capacity of education officers and the correctional centres employing them. A major challenge for future distance education provision to this cohort is to identify alternatives that will allow prisoners to access learning management environments and electronic resources while maintaining the necessary security. Although the traditional forms of delivery using hard-copy ‘blocks’ of materials are successful to a certain extent, they do not enable incarcerated students to develop the technological skills and e-literacy skills that are essential to formal learning in current Australian education and training environments. Access to information and communication technologies within prisons for use in education is severely restricted. Most prisoneducation centres provide access to computers which inmates may access for a limited number of hours under strict supervision and some prisons run in-cell laptop programmes for students engaged in tertiary studies (BearingPoint Review, 2003).
Though the role of prison governors is vital in ensuring that education and skills training is locally tailored and responsive to the needs of particular prison populations, national oversight of minimum standards is also important. The first question is where overall departmental responsibility should sit for prisoneducation, a sector affected by numerous policy agendas. Currently the majority of learning and skills provision in prison is co-commissioned by the Skills Funding Agency (SFA), an executive agency sponsored by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS), and the National Offender Management Service (NOMS), an executive agency of the Ministry of Justice. If greater autonomy is given to prison governors to run their own education departments, one option for ensuring a clear line of accountability back to national Government would be for responsibility for education in prisons to be passed back to the Ministry of Justice. While this would have the advantage of clarity, there is a real risk of prisoneducation becoming disconnected from the wider employment and skills agenda, and subordinated to other crime reduction priorities in the justice area. The reason for allocating the prisoneducation budget to BIS through the SFA originally was to ensure parity of offer for offenders with the mainstream FE and skills sector.
In other cases, where discouragement was identified, wider social implications (particularly financial) were found to be the origin of barriers to educational encouragement. ‘Dave’s’, father’s infrequent presence and repeated criminal activity had a significant impact on his life. His early years had been spent replicating his father’s criminal behaviour rather than seeking education and he expressed this in terms of filling a paternal gap. Although Dave later reconnected with his father, this didn’t impact favourably on his academic achievements. Frequently in and out of his life, Dave described his father’s comings and goings as a regular feeling of abandonment. Furthermore, when his father returned, Dave was actively discouraged from going to college as his father did not want to continue to pay child maintenance costs.
Different analysts reading and reviewing essentially the same set of studies have come to different conclusions. The skeptic’s view is that there are some promising results from high quality studies, but there are too many poorly designed and executed studies to come to definitive conclusions about the impact of correctional education on reentry outcomes. The optimist’s view is that taken as a whole the poorly designed and well designed studies point to the same conclusion. Correctional education reduces recidivism and enhances post-release employment. One’s interpretation of cost- benefit also hinges on where one lands on the skepticism-optimism scale. Economic assumptions aside, if you are unwilling to accept the average effect sizes, discounts and all, the economic assumptions are meaningless. My reading of this literature is that the strong observational studies support a conclusion that correctional education reduces recidivism and enhances employment outcomes, but I have no way of estimating the true effect size. It could be 9 percent for VT programs, but it could also be higher or lower. If the WSIPP economic assumptions are valid, even small effect sizes, can produce meaningful net benefits. Even from a taxpayer’s perspective, the marginal costs of education pale in comparison to the marginal savings in criminal justice costs from reductions in arrests, convictions, or recommitments. Consistent with this perspective is the evidence for education achievement returns for people in the community even though there is some controversy on how much of this return is an ability bias (Becker, 1993; Card, 1999; Willis and Rosen, 1979). As of yet, there are not enough high quality studies to indicate which types of correctional education provide the highest post-release returns. There are no high quality studies of college coursework and the average effects sizes for VT and GED training seem to be about the same within meta-analyses, even though they are different across meta-analyses.
The work permit legitimizes worker claims by inserting it in the visible universe productivity. One of the re- quirements for the return to crime in the world is on the fact that working life is dissociated from the skills that the graduate has left the prison system. Rare are the professional opportunities that include inmates in prison system. The prison work sometimes becomes alienating real-world community work to receive the detainee. To perceive helpless without real livelihood opportunities for themselves and family, uses the actions that knows and the inevitable, then occurs: recidivism. To reverse this situation the prison system need to enable the acqui- sition of a profession, within the prison center, review the employment possibilities of the labor market by up- dating and preparing the detainee for possible professions that would really be enabled.
comparison between individual schools. I suggest a similar approach be developed for use in prisons so that Governors have a much clearer grasp of the educational profile of the prisoners for whom they are responsible. However, I appreciate that this will not be easy to achieve: most prisons are more complex organisations than most schools; the cohort is made up of adult learners of different ages; and almost all start with widely-varying levels of educational achievement and enter - and exit - the system at different times. Of course, for some time we are likely to have very little in the way of historical trends data, but the recommendations I make throughout my report are aimed at both immediate improvement and at long-term transformation of the quality of prisoneducation. This is clearly a recommendation to support the long- term, though that does not mean there should be delay in its implementation. 1.22 The key measure for education needs to be progression against the baseline
The paper has also looked at what might become the fate of correctional officers as prison inmates population continues to grow. The Knowledge of and ability to understand the antecedents of correctional employee affective states, attitudes, and behaviors is critical for all parties involved, including correctional employees ,correctional administrators, academicians, inmates, and society in general. The paper supports the premise that job stress, supervision, job variety, and job autonomy are critical aspects of the work environment which impact correctional staff. The effects of job characteristics on correctional staff should not be ignored by future research on correctional staff or by correctional administrators. Correctional officers are the heart and souls of correctional agencies (Herbeck, 2008; Marion and Oliver, 2006; Mills, 2007). In summary, employees are at the heart and soul of any correctional facility. Correctional facilities succeed or fail because of their staff. Working in corrections is abounding with opportunities for work-family conflict (Griffin et al, 2010). It is only in the last decade that there has been empirical research on Work on Family Conflict among correctional staff. This small, but growing body of research has mainly examined the consequences of Work on Family Conflict. It has been found that Work on Family Conflict leads to greater job stress, lower job satisfaction and organizational commitment among correctional workers.
Prisoner numbers in Victoria have been building rapidly: Victoria’s prison population has more than doubled over the past two decades from 2,272 in 1993 to 5,762 in 2013 (Jesuit Social Services 2014, p2). The prison population has increased by a further 15% over the past 12 months: there were 6,247 prisoners in Victorian prisons on Friday, 25 July 2014, 824 more than 12 months earlier. 3 The Dame Phyllis Frost Centre, Port Phillip Prison, Barwon Prison and the Marngoneet Correctional Centre, Loddon Prison and Melbourne Assessment Prison together with the Metropolitan Remand Centre and the Custody Centre are all within the Archdiocese of Melbourne (O’Shannassy, 2012). Corrections Victoria 4 – a business unit of the Department of Justice – is responsible for prison management in Victoria and for all prisoners in both publicly and privately-managed prisons, including administering the contracts of the two private prison providers. Corrections Victoria is responsible for achieving the appropriate balance between a high level of community safety and the humane treatment of prisoners including focusing on strategies to rehabilitate prisoners in custody. It sets, monitors and reviews standards in both public and private prisons, undertakes business planning, and initiates and manages correctional infrastructure programs.
On 1 January 2007, a comprehensive police and court reform was launched. A resulting (and presumably temporary) reduction in efficiency in the proc‐ essing of cases in these fields has placed the Prison and Probation Service in the opposite situation at the moment compared with the years before 2007. The inflow of newly sentenced offenders has thus been so low during the past year that some enforcement places are temporarily closed. However, developments are monitored closely as the structural reforms mentioned above are expected to be fully implemented during 2008. Subsequently, the completion of piled‐up cases with the police and the courts will probably re‐ sult in a rapid increase in the inflow of sentenced offenders. A notable in‐ crease in the average number of remand prisoners for the period from Febru‐ ary to April 2008, compared with the preceding years, substantiates this as‐ sumption.