AN ANALYSIS OF INMATES IN DAVIDSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE:
FACTORS THAT IMPACT PARTICIPATION IN GED PROGRAMS
A Dissertation
Submitted to the Graduate School
of
Tennessee State University
in
Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of
Doctor of Education
Graduate Research Series No. _______
Turner Nashe Jr.
December 2010
AN ANALYSIS OF INMATES IN DAVIDSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE:
FACTORS THAT IMPACT PARTICIPATION IN GED PROGRAMS
A Dissertation
Submitted to the Graduate School
of
Tennessee State University
in
Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of
Doctor of Education
Turner Nashe Jr.
December 2010
Copyrighted © 2010
by
Turner Nashe Jr.
All rights reserved
To the Graduate School:
We are submitting a dissertation by Turner Nashe Jr. entitled: “An Analysis of Inmates
in Davidson County, Tennessee: Factors that Impact Participation in GED Programs.”
We recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
degree, Doctor of Education in Educational Administration, with concentration in
Administration and Supervision.
Trinetia Respress ________
Chairperson
Janet Finch ______________
Committee Member
Nichole Kendall __________
Committee Member
Karen Stevens____________
Committee Member
Owen Johnson ___________
Committee Member
Accepted for the Graduate School:
_____Alex Sekwat___________
Dean of the Graduate School
iv
DEDICATION
There is but one source that has placed me in this position of enlightenment. This
source is the Almighty God. I have been shown the light of his blessings and shall pass it
forward through the same education and enlightenment afforded me. When my life
seemed to be taking a turn in the wrong direction, it seems as though all obstacles were
removed and a path of understanding has presented itself. It is in this recognition of the
gift of thought, which forces me into action with the hopes of bringing dreams to life.
-
“I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me”.
Phil: 4:13
v
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Professionally, I would like to thank the Davidson County Sheriff’s Office. Sheriff
Daron Hall opened up his department and his facilities in the spirit of improving best
practices. It takes a true leader to understand that there is always room for improvement.
Thanks to DCSO Chief of Corrections, Tony Wilkes, who made sure that facility staff
and inmates were aware of my purpose and objective. Thank you to my dissertation
committee. There have been many drafts and lessons that have contributed to this work.
It does take a village to raise a doctor. I pray that this research can contribute to your
existing body of knowledge and continued success. Thank you to the inmates that
participated as well.
Personally, I would like to thank the long list of those who had a hand in this
process. First, to my lovely wife, who has been there through three years of the weekend
classes and never complained. To my grandmother, who took me in when no other
relative understood the importance a of college education. My Grandma, in her infinite
wisdom, would recollect how she only made five cents a day, but kept her job in the
basement of a hospital washing sheets for thirty years. For my Grandfathers, that held
their families together working in a steel foundry and the other in the sewers of
Cleveland, for the water department.
-
To my Aunt C, who showed me that an education will allow you to soar in life.
This same woman used to always tell me that “excuses are tools for the
incompetent, they build monuments of nothing”. Every reason for not taking risk
was an excuse.
vi
-
To my Aunt B, who introduced me to so many high profile people as a youth, that
I fear being inquisitive with no man or woman under any circumstance.
-
To my Father in a strange way, who told me that I needed to get a job and not go
to college. Because of my rebellious nature towards him, I often wonder if he had
told me to indeed go to college, if I in fact would have gone to work instead.
Finally, to my Mother, who afforded me experiences through a wide spectrum of
emotions as a youth. Being very close emotionally and then again traumatically
distanced by situations in life. Finally in my adulthood, I realize that the circle of life will
afford me the opportunity to return many favors and gifts. I wouldn’t change a thing
about the way I have arrived to this point. I thank everyone involved both directly and
indirectly. You’ve all made a difference in my life that will cause me to make positive
differences in the lives of others. Thank you.
vii
ABSTRACT
TURNER NASHE JR. An Analysis of Inmates in Davidson County, Tennessee: Factors
That Impact Participation in GED Programs. (Under the direction of DR. TRINETIA
RESPRESS)
This study examined the experiences of the incarcerated, school dropout
population. With an ever increasing number of high school dropouts, it is imperative that
educational administrators attempt to slow the regression. Jail facility educational
administrators especially need to have information on ways to increase participation in
GED programming within the inmate populations. This work is significant in that it
provides insight into the objective and subjective nature of low participation rates by
comparing perceptions of those eligible and participating as opposed to those eligible and
not participating in GED programming.
This study took place in Nashville, TN under the auspices of the Davidson County
Sheriff’s Department. There were surveys distributed to ascertain the personal
experiences in the categories of previous school experiences, self concept and efficacy,
peer influence, home/family influence, facility influence, and post release value of a
GED. A multiple regression analysis was run among the seven categories to compare the
participant and non participant populations so as to search for significant differences.
It was found that there was no single contributor towards achieving the objective
of increasing participation in GED programming while incarcerated. Only when
considering the combination of self concept/efficacy, family/home environment, and
viii
previous school experience, were the most significant differences discovered between the
two populations of inmates who participated and those that did not. No significance was
found in the other areas of peer influence, facility influence, jail facility influence, post
release expectation of a GED. The results of this study are useful to educational
administrators both in jail facilities as well as in the general population.
ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER
Page
LIST OF TABLES .....................................................................................................ix
I.
INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................1
Statement of the Problem ...............................................................................4
Purpose of the Study ......................................................................................5
Significance of the Study ...............................................................................5
Research Questions ........................................................................................8
Limitations .....................................................................................................9
Definition of Terms........................................................................................10
Organization of Dissertation ..........................................................................12
II.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE ........................................................................14
Overview ........................................................................................................14
High School Graduation Rates and Contributing Factors..............................16
History of Educational Programs in Prison ...................................................20
Barriers affecting participation among all dropouts .....................................23
Responsibility of educational administrators .................................................25
Levels of education among inmates ...............................................................26
Family influence on education and incarceration ..........................................29
Dropout and inmate efficacy and self esteem ................................................33
Environmental influences and gang culture in prison....................................38
The prison environment and education .........................................................40
Reducing recidivism………………………………………………………...41
Expected post release value of a GED……………………………………...44
Manufactured educational inmate cohorts…………………………………..47
III.
METHODS AND PROCEDURES................................................................51
Research Design ............................................................................................53
Target Population ...........................................................................................53
Sampling Method ...........................................................................................54
Instrumentation ..............................................................................................55
Data Collection ..............................................................................................56
Data Analysis .................................................................................................58
Hypotheses .....................................................................................................60
x
CHAPTER
IV.
Page
ANALYSIS OF DATA..................................................................................62
Descriptive Findings ......................................................................................64
Variables ...............................................................................................64
Participants ............................................................................................65
Factor Analysis ..............................................................................................68
Null Hypotheses .............................................................................................70
Null Hypothesis 1 .................................................................................70
Null Hypothesis 2 .................................................................................71
Null Hypothesis 3 .................................................................................73
Null Hypothesis 4 .................................................................................75
Null Hypothesis 5 .................................................................................76
Null Hypothesis 6 .................................................................................77
Null Hypothesis 7……………………………………………………..79
V.
CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................81
Summary ........................................................................................................81
Findings and Interpretations ..........................................................................81
Implications for Practice ................................................................................86
Recommendations for educational administrators……………………87
Recommendations for legislative change……………………………..89
Recommendations for correctional facilities………………………….90
Recommendations for community change……………………………94
Recommendations for Future Research .........................................................94
Conclusion .....................................................................................................97
REFERENCES ..........................................................................................................100
APPENDICES
A.
B.
C.
D.
Informed Consent Form ........................................................................109
Survey Tool ...........................................................................................111
Institutional Review Board Approval ...................................................118
Davidson County Sheriff’s Office Letter of Cooperation.....................120
xi
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE
Page
1.
Demographics by Gender ..............................................................................64
2.
Demographics by Participation ......................................................................65
3.
Demographics by Age....................................................................................65
4.
Number of Years of High School Equivalent Education ...............................66
5.
Demographics by Marital Status....................................................................67
6.
Category Level Test for Research Hypothesis 1............................................70
7.
Question Level Test for Research Hypothesis 1 ............................................71
8.
Category Level Test for Research Hypothesis 2............................................72
9.
Question Level Test for Research Hypothesis 2 ............................................73
10.
Category Level Test for Research Hypothesis 3............................................74
11.
Question Level Test for Research Hypothesis 3 ............................................74
12.
Category Level Test for Research Hypothesis 4............................................75
13.
Question Level Test for Research Hypothesis 4 ............................................76
14.
Category Level Test for Research Hypothesis 5……………………………76
15.
Question Level Test for Research Hypothesis 5……………………………77
16.
Category Level Test for Research Hypothesis 6……………………………78
17.
Question Level Test for Research Hypothesis 6……………………………78
18.
Demographic Logistic Regression Results………………………................79
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Background of the Study
In 2008, over 7.3 million people in the U.S. were on probation, in jail or prison, or
on parole at yearend. This population represents over three percent of all U.S. adult
residents, or one in every thirty one adults (USDOJ 2009). The United States holds
roughly five percent of the world’s population, yet locks up approximately twenty five
percent of the world’s prisoners. According to Harrison and Beck (2006), the total state
and federal prison populations in the United States have ballooned. It is important to
view this issue in its totality from a federal level all the way down to local jurisdictions.
The US Census (2006) indicates that the total number of people under correctional
supervision has increased from 2,052,938 to 7,211,400 between the years 1983 and 2006.
This equates to a compounding 224,000 additional people entering the system each year
during this twenty three year period.
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (2007), 18% of the nation’s general
population did not complete high school as compared to 41% of all inmates in federal
and state prison. Additionally, one in three incarcerated school dropouts reported that
they quit school primarily due to behavioral and academic problems (Hrabowski &
Robbi, 2002). Campbell (2004) indicates that many individuals incarcerated are victims
2
themselves of being undereducated and marginalized citizens who receive elongated and
unfair sentences. At the state level, more specific to this research, the State of Tennessee
Department of Corrections holds on average between 19,000 and 22,000 prisoners
annually, (TDOC, 2009).
In fiscal year 2008-2009, within the TDOC, only 12-13% of the eligible
population participates in the educational programs. These programs include Adult Basic
Education (ABE) /General Education Degree (GED), segregated closed circuit television,
Volunteer Literacy, and various college courses. Of those who participated in educational
programs (N=4,235), roughly 28% tested in the General Education Diploma program
(N=1,224). Of these tested participants, only 60.2% (N=737) passed the GED test.
Conversely, there were more graduates in the TDOC vocational program; a total of 1468
(34% of enrolled population).
The Davidson County Sheriff’s Office (DCSO) in Nashville TN, rotates an annual
population of approximately 100,000 inmates through their doors. Between booking
people into the system and housing locally sentenced felons, DCSO keeps a steady flow
of people. Sentences can last as short as a couple of hours and at most six years. In the
year 2009, out of the average daily population of approximately 3400 inmates, 1245
inmates were enrolled in some type of educational program. DCSO GED program
approvals totaled 865 for the year of 2010 (DCSO Wilkes, 2010). An approval means
that applications to enroll have been processed and the inmate is waiting for a program
opening. According to DCSO, adult inmates may attend more than 30 classes per week in
3
subjects, such as basic literacy, English as a second language, GED, and art. Two
hundred and thirty years of combined experience are possessed by the 12 teachers who
conduct the classes. Jails, like the ones at the county level, are primarily the holding
ground for those awaiting trial. As compared to “prison” populations, only 33% of those
in “jails” are held for more than one month. Inmates held in jails don’t have as much time
as those in prisons to complete GED programs. Jailed inmates are most often awaiting
trial or sentencing. Those in prison are actually serving a sentence. This “Jail time” is
far less time than is needed to complete a course from start to finish. (Beck, 2006)
In 1982 the Federal Bureau of Prisons placed into mandate that if an inmate
functioned below a sixth grade level education, the inmate had to participate in a
mandatory 90 day ABE program. By 1996, 21 states had adopted similar mandatory
education policies. It is evident that the mandate of a sixth grade education as opposed to
a GED leaves much room for systemic articulation and standardization as it relates to
what is acceptable for rehabilitation. In many of these states where education is
mandatory, it is linked with sentencing as incentive for early release or increased
responsibility by qualification within a jail facility. According to the Bureau of Justice
Statistics (2004), approximately 34.4% of individuals in federal prisons have attained less
than a high school education. There is a grand deficit of education between incarcerated
adults as compared to those in the US adult general population. These differences begin
before, during, and after incarceration occurs. The lack of education leads to a life of
fewer opportunities, which in turn leads to crime and recidivism. In light of these bleak
4
figures, it is recognized that a problem exists in correctional facilities. Inmates, even
while incarcerated, choose not to take advantage of free education.
Statement of the Problem
Inmates choose not to take advantage of the free GED educational opportunities
while incarcerated. Low education levels of inmates are directly attributable to high
crime rates and recidivism. Of these incarcerated adults, many have not completed their
proper k-12 education. These same young adults do not take advantage of GED
programs in jail or prison systems. The failure of prisoners to educate themselves
contributes to an ever increasing population of young adults aged 18-34 that tend to
recidivate back into incarceration.
The failure of inmates to participate in GED programs can be attributed to an
inmates previous school experience, low self esteem, negative influences from family
members, negative peer influences, and school plant adequacy. These issues can have an
influence on whether or not a student finds success in cursory education. These issues
need to be minimalized inside jail/prison facilities in order to increase educational
program participation. The least restrictive environments increase opportunity to those
who might ordinarily shy away from adversity in education.
An amalgamation of the aforementioned issues leads to higher crime, recidivism,
and expenses to the taxpayers of the state of Tennessee. When crime is higher, more
resources must be allocated to crime prevention tools such as police. When recidivism is
high, more facilities and guards must be employed. Lastly, as inmates are repeatedly
arrested, they are handed longer sentences. This vicious cycle of prevention versus cure
5
is taxing on the ever strained annual budget. The cost to house an inmate in Tennessee in
2006 was $21,502 (TDOC, 2007). In comparison, average spending per pupil in
Tennessee was $7,469 in fiscal year 2005–06 (Tennessee Department of Education
Annual Statistical Report, 2005–06). It is much less expensive to educate than to
incarcerate. Therefore, it is important that we examine why inmates don’t take advantage
of GED opportunities so that we can better assist jail/prison educational administrators in
determining effective ways to motivate inmates to take advantage of GED programming
which will hopefully provide inmates with better opportunities upon release from the jail
system.
Purpose of the Study
The primary purpose of this study is to identify differences between those who
participate in GED programming while incarcerated and those that did not when
considering factors such as pre-incarceration educational experiences, self-concept and
efficacy, family/home environment support systems, peer influences, prison environment,
and post release value of a GED. The secondary purpose of this study is to identify
differences between those who participate in GED programming while incarcerated and
those that did not when considering age, gender, marital status, school equivalency,
sentence length, location of residence, and life satisfaction.
Significance of the Study
The results of this study provides educators, school administrators, and jails with
pertinent information on factors that impact inmates’ decision to participate in GED
programs at correctional institutions. The more understanding we have of impediments
6
that prevent prisoners from continuing their education before and during incarceration,
the more effectively we can address our chances of reducing crime and recidivism among
inmates. This information can help educators to focus their attention on efficacy issues
amongst inmates. It can also allow educators to have an illuminated thought path by those
who do not wish to participate. There may be practices and procedures that can be
followed by educators once there is an understanding of what educational factors
precipitate incarceration.
This information can also help prison officials to solve the problems associated
with low participation within DCSO programs as well as increase participation and
success in the GED program. It is important to better the participation rates and GED
graduation rates of inmates so that they will have more opportunity to gain employment
or further education upon release from jails. It is far cheaper to educate than it is to
incarcerate.
On a national level, reducing recidivism within the Federal Bureau of Prisons
would allow for more funds to be diverted from corrections to other needed areas, such as
early childhood education, housing, and job creation. Many other services offered to the
poor and marginalized are underfunded because the prevention of crime is far more
expensive than the cure. As previously stated, social welfare programs are the first to be
cut when a budget crisis arises. These programs are designed to benefit those with the
most unmet need.
On the state level, this study would benefit the departments of corrections. It
would be very important to know from a target marketing perspective, as to what barriers
7
exist and can be removed from the GED initiation process. As state funds are at an all
time low for education, especially inmate education, it is important to spend every dollar
wisely. We could also target those students in schools before they become inmates. If
these future inmates could be diverted early from a life of crime, we as citizens save
money as well. If not just for the savings, we would realize a more intent monetary policy
aimed at progress and not the current regressive tax model to support inmate facilities.
On the local level, results from this study can be used by schools in conjunction
with the previously mentioned correctional administration to track data trends. These data
trends could indicate on an inferential level the patterns that lead to the demise of
students. The local school districts and business communities could work together as
stakeholders to create a new path for troubled students before they become delinquents.
This study helps educational administrators to collaborate with public officials in
the areas of correctional education and transitional education for those being released
from incarceration. It is of importance to the greater society for people not to feel
disenfranchised to the point where they don’t feel that education is important. If in fact
future incarceration rates are being based upon third grade truancy rates, teachers in the
general population and those in prison populations need to have a continual dialogue.
This dialogue should form a directive collaborative approach to eliminating obstacles to
students before they become involved in a life of crime. Constant modifications and
reflections to our education system over time should yield a solution to the problem of
wayward youth. As an educational administrator, the responsibility of providing an
education is the basic tenant of the profession. Exhibiting leadership and instilling quality
8
curriculum into a broken system of public education should be the task of every
educational leader.
This study impacts future research by illustrating the major areas of contention
which lead to inmate hesitancy in enrolling in GED programs. These barriers to
enrollment were identified by the strata of the data in the aforementioned areas of
education, efficacy, family, peers, environment, and inmate facility. Educational
administrators will be able to adjust programming and eliminate these barriers to
enrollment both inside and outside of prison.
This research differs from previous research in that it focused on assisting those
not in GED classes while incarcerated. This research then sought to simultaneously
compare these responses of those currently enrolled in the same facilities. There is little if
any research that has sought to solicit responses from those who do not participate in an
effort to evaluate institutional effectiveness as it relates to inmate participation in GED
programs.
Research Questions
Given the problems discussed with relation to the lack of education leading to
increased crime, this study focused on the following six major research questions.
1. Are there differences between those inmates enrolled in GED programming
and those not enrolled when considering pre-incarceration educational
experiences?
2. Are there differences between those inmates enrolled in GED programming
and those not enrolled when considering self- concept and efficacy?
9
3. Are there differences between those inmates enrolled in GED programming
and those not enrolled when considering family environment support systems?
4. Are there differences between those inmates enrolled in GED programming
and those not enrolled when considering peer influences?
5. Are there differences between those inmates enrolled in GED programming
and those not enrolled when considering jail facility environment?
6. Are there differences between those inmates enrolled in GED programming
and those not enrolled when considering perceived post release value of a
GED?
7. Are there differences between those inmates enrolled in GED programming
and those not enrolled when considering demographics such as age, gender,
marital status, school equivalency, sentence length, location of residence, and
life satisfaction?
Limitations
The limitations to this study are identified in the following order. Cost was the
first identifiable limitation to this study. The more money available to conduct the study,
the greater the number of participants and incarceration facilities reached. The researcher
spent multiple hours to distribute and collect surveys in person, across the span of several
weeks. This time and travel cost became capital intensive.
The second research limitation to this study was time. This study should be done
as a marketing study relatively often by a correctional facility. It can be used to monitor
both students and post release impact on community and the net tangible benefit to both.
10
Populations were in constant rotation in and out of DCSO custody and between facilities
during the survey periods. The data gathered by this study is specific to this population.
Because turnover is so high within these faculties, different perceptions may exist three to
six months from now. This limitation should be viewed as an opportunity to implement
regular inquisition on the subject.
The third research limitation related to the response level of participants.
Response levels were not as high as expected as most inmates are non- participatory by
statistics. The overall participation level was fairly consistent with participation levels in
the educational programming. The communication channel was paramount. Face to face
introductions were allowed, they were the preferred method of explaining and
administering the questionnaire.
The fourth research limitation was related to privacy issues. Jails and prisons
process a high volume of individuals. It was difficult to survey individuals in private and
simultaneously solicit participation from additional inmates. In this environment, many
inmates did not want to advertise their successes or their failures in such educational
endeavors. It was much less revealing to not participate.
List of Definitions
ABE - Adult Basic Education. Program is to provide instruction in the basic skills
of reading, writing, and mathematics to adult learners in order to prepare them for
transitioning into the labor market or higher academic or vocational training.
(http://www.jobs.state.ak.us/abe/)
DCSO – Davidson County Sheriff’s Office, located in Nashville Tennessee.
11
Eligible Participant – An inmate with less than high school equivalency
education while incarcerated, and participates in DCSO GED program.
Eligible Non- participant – An inmate with less than high school level
equivalency education while incarcerated, and does not participate in DCSO GED
program.
Event Dropout - the proportion of youth ages 15 through 24 who dropped out of
grades 10-12 in the 12 months preceding a designated school year. Demographic data
collected in the Current Population Survey (CPS) permit event dropout rates to be
calculated across various individual characteristics, including race/ethnicity, sex, region
of residence, and income level.
GED – General Education Diploma. Tests consist of a group of five subject tests
which, when passed, certify that the taker has American or Canadian High School level
academic skills. (Wikipedia, 2010)
Graduation - is the action of receiving or conferring an academic degree or the
ceremony that is sometimes associated, where students become Graduates. (Wikipedia
2010)
Jail - is a place for the confinement of persons in lawful detention. Jails are
largely filled with individuals awaiting trial. (DCSO, 2010)
Prison - is a place where persons convicted are confined. Prisons are
predominantly for convicted felons. (DCSO, 2010)
Recidivism - is the act of a person repeating an undesirable behavior after they
have either experienced negative consequences of that behavior, or have been treated or
12
trained to extinguish that behavior. It is also known as the percentage of former prisoners
who are rearrested. (Wikipdia, 2010)
TDOC –Tennessee Department of Corrections
Vocational Education - prepares learners for jobs that are based in manual or
practical activities, traditionally non-academic and totally related to a specific trade,
occupation or vocation, hence the term, in which the learner participates. It is sometimes
referred to as technical education, as the learner directly develops expertise in a particular
group of techniques or technology. (Wikipedia, 2010)
Organization of the Dissertation
This dissertation is presented in five main chapters. Chapter I provides the
introduction to the study. The chapter begins with the background to the study, the
problem statement, the purpose of the study, the significance of the study, research
questions, research hypotheses, delimitations, and the operational definition of terms.
Chapter II contains information that comprises the review of related literature.
This chapter covers the areas of history of prison education, barriers affecting GED
participation among all drop outs, levels of education among inmates, family influence on
a person’s education and incarceration, high school graduation rates and contributing
factors, responsibility of educational administrators, hurdles of gaining employment post
release, environmental influences in prison, and manufactured educational inmate
cohorts.
13
Chapter III describes the research methodology employed for this study. The
research methodology includes the research methods, design, population and sample.
This section also includes the data collection instrument, procedure, and analysis plan.
Chapter IV presents the results of the study. This chapter includes the analysis
and interpretation of the data collected by this study.
Chapter V completes the dissertation. This chapter also provides a brief
restatement of the problem and purpose of this study. Thereafter, the research findings,
conclusions, and recommendations for future studies were stated.
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
Introduction
The importance of education to our country’s population can be traced back to
the days of our forefathers. Their intent to place the responsibility of education upon the
government at federal, state, and local levels is a significant pillar upon which to build
the argument for equality among all students. It was the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision
in Rodriguez V. Texas, which concluded that it was up to the states to adequately fund
education according to their individual needs and customs. There is no such norm that
would indicate that any high school dropout, prisoner or otherwise, relinquishes their
right to be educated. Within current budget deficits there has been a shift to ignore the
current crisis that increases year after year, the increasing number of incarcerations.
According to USDOJ (2009), the prison industry spends over $70 billion per year
to maintain function. The industry itself needs the constant flow of traffic to continue to
employ hundreds of thousands of police officers, probation officers, judges, attorneys and
corrections officers. It can be seen as an industry under the guise of public good.
There are many correct choices that would preclude one from being in the predicament of
incarceration. There is the responsibility of the individual. One who finds him or herself
behind bars has more often than not, made a series of incorrect decisions based off of
their available options. This research explored several of these optioned circumstances
and their impact upon the final result of being incarcerated. Recognizing that not all high
15
school drop-outs become criminals, this research also investigated commonalities that
addressed a person’s school environment, family influences, peer influences, post release
value, self concept and efficacy beliefs about the value of an education. Lifestyle
changes must occur to attain a GED after dropping out. More specifically, life skills and
job skills will also enhance opportunities in a person’s life (USDOJ, 1997). According to
the NCES (2007) report on Graduation rates, the GED Testing Service reports the
number of people who passed the GED exam each year by age. The NCES most recent
report indicates that approximately 223,000 persons ages 18–24 passed the GED in 2007.
According to King (2002), a study was conducted to determine what barriers to
participation in GED programs exist among recent high school drop outs. In this study,
119 participants in GED programs were polled who had dropped out of high school
within the previous three years. From King’s version of the DPSG, this was a
quantitative study with 34 question items which were placed into nine factor groups.
Answers were garnered via Likert scale format, which is inherent to the DPSG. The
findings of those polled illustrated that deterrents to participation in adult education
programs are multi-dimensional and that analysis of barriers to participation among
different subgroups is required in order to fully understand the construct. This
demonstrated that the results of such a study are just as independent as the populations
polled. There is no template that explains participation across all dropout segments
(gender, age, race, socioeconomic status).
Moeller, Day, Rivera (2004) conducted a study that explored a group of 16
inmates in a minimum security prison. The qualitative portion of this study asked 10
16
open ended questions. The quantitative portion of this study consisted of six multiple
choice/rating questions. From the answers of the questionnaire, the results indicated that
participants attended class of their own free will. Participants also saw that there was a
relationship between education and probability of re-incarceration. It was noted that with
such a small sample size of 16, the results of this study could not be applied across mass
populations. Whether incarcerated or in the general population, the causes for minimal
participation of dropouts in GED programs are multi varied. The timing, location,
gender, age, and family status have great impact upon the results recorded from the
DPSG instruments.
High School Graduation Rates and Contributing Factors
According to the national status dropout rates (NCES, 2009), in October 2007,
approximately 3.3 million 16 through 24-year-olds were not enrolled in high school and
had not earned a high school diploma or alternative credential. These status dropouts
accounted for 8.7 percent of the 37 million non-institutionalized, civilian 16 through 24year-olds living in the United States.
In any industrialist society, school curriculum is forged and guided by the process
of creating and supplying an adequate and competitive workforce. According to
Campbell (2004), in the book Choosing Democracy, there is a disproportionate number
of poverty stricken children that do not have a voice as citizens or as students. They are
disenfranchised by the standards that we use to rate importance of education among
certain classes of people. Campbell also speaks of the contradiction in terms of the glory
that we use to praise America. Through the demonstrative use of African slaves, Native
17
American Indians, and Hispanic laborers, it can be seen that those who have built this
country with their bare hands have been left farthest behind.
There is an understanding among minorities that being poor is not having
adequate resources to better oneself. Being poor in this country is a result of being a
minority. Campbell supports this claim by citing data which shows that most segregated
African American and Latino schools are dominated by poor children. To draw contrast,
the author cites that 96% of white schools have middle class majority. This middle class
majority demands high quality teaching through its voting power base. Campbell also
proffers that although minorities in poverty do vote, there were several examples of how
voters were discounted and discarded in the 2000 U.S. Presidential elections.
As race and poverty go hand in hand, Campbell continues to discuss how race
riots are really caused by those who want better access and just happened to be the
minority as it relates to race. The end results of these riots tends to be death for the
under- represented. The machine which instigates these unfair commerce practices are
initiated and supported by the elite in society. There was a strong relationship outlined to
illustrate reciprocity among Washington D.C. and Wall Street. Campbell defined
democracy as “being based on values; the value that each person has equal merit, the
right to equal treatment before the law.” Campbell believes that Americans have
consented to a social contract to work together to improve our common standard of living
especially for our children.”
In order for educational administrators to retake the righteous path of equality,
emphasis must be placed on multicultural education as a priority in an effort to create a
18
more democratic society. Not only should students participate in democracy in schools,
but also in society. Those living in poverty should have equal opportunity to participate
in the economic and political arenas as well. Unfortunately, it was also noted in social
studies of impoverished communities, that impoverished children may not be going to
school primarily to get a quality education. In many cases, school is the only place poor
children can go to get a good meal, have safety, and take advantage of adult nurturing and
supervision (Campbell, 2004).
Through the divisive sustenance of this practice, can quality education ever really
take place? There are social inequities that climb to the top of the social ladder within our
communities. When policy is to maintain the status quo, those who are in power follow
Marxist principle and will in turn do what is necessary to uphold the inequities of their
institutions. In a strong example, the author Campbell cites the 2000 US Presidential
election which he identifies that African American voters represented 11% of the voting
population of Florida, their voting intentions were a disproportionate 54% of the
discarded or “spoiled” ballots.
Racism is indeed a danger to our democracy. It is indeed a tool used by a
dominant culture to control by law, its own privileges, and to enforce domination of
others (Campbell, 2004). Race consequently is used as a synonym in schools as a
correlate to poor performance. Many in the majority may just account for their
homogenous schools’ achievement and neighborhoods due to the lack of effort placed
forth by other races. There are subtle intricacies that contribute to the sub-standard
19
education and misplacement of many well qualified individuals.
In the United States, three and one-half of every 100 students who were enrolled
in public or private high schools in October 2006, left school before October 2007
without completing a high school program. However, leaning in a positive direction,
since 1972 the event dropout rates have decreased, from 6.1 percent in 1972 to 3.5
percent in 2007. The greatest declines occurred primarily from 1972 through 1990. To
the antithesis, from 1990 through 1995, event dropout rates increased, but then decreased
again from 1995 through 2007 (NCES, 2009).
Contributing factors to the dropout rates among all students, not making a
distinction for incarceration, would indicate that family income, race, and age do play a
role in the general population. According to NCES (2009), event dropout rates by family
income in 2007 indicate that students living in low-income families were about 10 times
greater than the rate of their peers from high-income families. Event dropout rates by sex
held that there was no measurable difference in the 2007 event dropout rates for males
and females. These rates were noted as a pattern generally found over the last 30 years.
This information provided by the NCES in the general population is not consistent with
those incarcerated. As Crayton and Neusteter (2008) indicate, males are much more
represented in the incarcerated dropout category.
According to the same 2009 report, NCES indicates that the event dropout rates
by age, show that students who pursued a high school education past the typical high
school age were at high risk of becoming an event dropout. The 2007
student event dropout rates for fall high school enrollment, which was comprised of
20
students aged 15 through 17 (3.2%), were lower than those for older students aged 20
through 24 (20.3%). This information is consistent with Nutall, Hollmen, and Staley
(2003) which indicate that enrollment is higher in prison GED programs within younger
populations. Nutall et al,( 2003) also indicated that the younger the inmate when they
receive their GED, the less likely they are to recidivate back to incarceration.
History of Educational Programs in Prison
Prison education began in the United States as it was implemented first at the
Walnut Street Jail in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania circa 1798. These schools originated as
“Sabbath” schools and were primarily focused on religious and moral standard. This
“Sabbath” curriculum was in addition to the piece work that was given to inmates to
perform within the confines of their cells during the rest of the week (Crayton &
Neusteter, 2008). An educator by the name of A. MacCormick (1931) stated that “if we
believe in the beneficial effect of education on man in general, we must believe in it for
the incarcerated population as well”. He also proffered that “the tools of education, while
no guarantee of character, are a powerful aid in forming and transforming it.”
Through the early 1800’s there was an argument that corrections had become too
lenient and not enough punishment had taken place. There again was another shift in the
early 1900’s that held principles similar to the reformatory movement in education.
Legislators felt that in order to rehabilitate an inmate, he must be made to be able to
function upon release in society. This seems to be a major tenant in the incarceration
prevention movement today. What are inmates to do when released back into society if
21
they’ve never been educated or taught a skill or trade prior to release? By the 1970’s and
1980’s, it was deemed that education was the enemy to recidivism (Crayton et al., 2008).
By 2009, many federal and state prison systems required a ninth grade level of
education. Jenkins (2002) further noted that when inmates are forced to participate, their
results are less positive that those who seek out the opportunity on their own. An inmate
must be motivated to participate in order for any programming to be effective. By
educating inmates to possess skills to be used upon release, the general prison
bureaucracy believed that society would be served.
Adult Basic Education and General Education Development programs taught
many prisoners book lessons as well as vocational skills. Coupled with these vocational
programs, policies to offer college courses were seen as a long term educational benefit.
Smarter inmates would realize the error in their ways and presumably denounce lives of
crime (Crayton et al, 2008). Unfortunately, before this could be proven valid by
longitudinal study, public sentiment waivered against producing stronger prisoners, both
mentally and physically as evidenced by the Violent Crime Control and Law enforcement
Act. In 1994, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, signed by President
Bill Clinton, eliminated the use of Pell Grant funds to prisoners wishing to pursue college
education. This act by the government stifled the opportunity for most inmates involved
in furthering their post secondary education. (U.S. Congress, 2004).
Throughout many studies referenced in this research, one of the main attributes to
the success of a prisoner re-integrating themselves into society, is possession of increased
22
self-esteem. When inmates have something to contribute to society, other than just
serving as the underclass, levels of recidivism decrease. Klein, Tolber, Burgarin, Cataldi,
& Tauschek (2004), state that the incarcerated population in the United States of America
is the most educationally disadvantaged population. Basic reading, writing, math, and
everyday living skills are non-existent in the ex-convict population. Not making the
investment to amend the socially accepted normalcy curve that exists between the
socially marginalized and the general population, will ensure that the divide continually
exists. Haigler (1994) states that educators are frequently locked in rooms that are
monitored by prison guards and the inmates often face peer pressure where achievement
and attendance in school are discouraged.
According to Greenberg & Dunleavy (2007), the adult general population as
compared to the incarcerated population shows that approximately 39% of prisoners are
below a basic sixth grade literacy level. When looking at the general population, 21% of
adults are below this reading level. As compared by race, Black and Hispanic numbers
actually infer that the number of proficient readers is actually higher on the inside of
these facilities. There are traditional failures that contribute to these low basic literacy
skills in both the incarcerated population as well as the general population. These failures
may include traditional school models, poverty ridden schools, poor teacher quality, and
lack of family support. There are specific issues that lie within certain ethnic
populations. As within the Hispanic population, there are high numbers of migrant
workers. These families move many times per year, never really allowing a child
23
to be incorporated into a school lesson plan. Within Metro Nashville Public Schools,
which is in the county of Davidson, Tennessee, many Hispanic children leave for spring
break in April and never come back. This same time coincides with the beginning of the
harvest seasons in Mexico (Shelton, personal communication, April 1, 2009).
According to Fabelo (2002), studies have found that inmates with the highest
levels of education were more likely upon release to obtain employment, have higher
wages, and lower recidivism. Prison education should lend itself to teaching pertinent
and relevant skills so that there is a natural progression into the job market upon release.
Allowing a human being to earn a livable wage to sustain themselves will help to curb
future offenses within the population. Educational Administrators have the responsibility
to maintain the integrity of the curriculum in order to ensure its validity.
Barriers Affecting GED Participation among All Dropouts
There are a myriad of barriers that affect participation in GED programs across
the country. Students in the general population, as a well as, those behind bars xperience
similar obstacles to completing their educational goals. There is no particular population
with an advantageous school offering over the other.
According to Warner (2000), while education programs may be beneficial, there
are too many other events in prison that work in direct opposition to education. Many
times these same barriers exist for those not incarcerated. Poverty and lack of
opportunity create a mentality that does not always agree with what is legal and what is
not. In defense of many, work ethic and the propensity to take risk is sometimes greater
for those with minimal opportunities. Lack of confidence, family responsibilities, time,
24
and institutional encouragement play major roles in the successes and failures of students
on the streets or behind bars. The challenge for the educational administrator is to
prepare teachers to create social environments that foster cognitive development for all
students (Hausfather, 1996). An increase in any of these detractors is representative of
an increase in the likelihood that a student will drop out or not finish high school. Within
the African American community and among females in general, once dropped out, the
average time before considering returning approximately 22 months after leaving school.
White males averaged approximately 18 months before returning (King, 2002).
Lack of resources such as transportation, technology, and child care are also
general reasons for the student to initiate the drop out of high school. As a vicious cycle,
these can all be spurred on by poverty. Campbell (2004) states that we neglect our
children in poverty as it relates to their schools. We marginalize our minorities by
providing the worst schools, the most inexperienced teachers, and the most outdated of
technology. By this neglect, he also proffers that we are denying them democracy.
Campbell also states that when we allow politicians to make the rules and distribute tax
payer dollars, they tend to serve themselves first. This leaves the poor to learn skill sets
from each other rather than from traditional curriculum. When utilizing again, this
“hidden” curriculum, children learn and practice bad habits that are most surely contrary
to suburban societal laws.
When workforce opportunities are compared to the motivation and efficacy of
GED completion, Ogbu (1987) infers that participation rates are low among African
Americans because there is no perceived benefit of a GED with relation to workforce
25
opportunities available. Denny (1992) also notes that African American populations had
“extremely” low participation rates in relation to the needs of the population. This would
lead some to question the relevance of education to the real life offerings for one to earn a
living.
Responsibility of Educational Administrators
Educational administrators have an impact on lowering or even eliminating
barriers to education. They must understanding the stress that impediments can place
upon students. According to Staratt (2005), educators are obliged to scaffold learning
activities to enable learners to translate the subject matter into terminology and provide
examples that younger less mature minds and imaginations can comprehend. Morality is
the first of many qualities that a leader must possess in educational administration. This
morality brings to the forefront the necessity to help those less fortunate. Starratt clearly
defines that therein lies a responsibility as a public servant to adhere to the ethical
obligation to respect the rights of one’s fellow citizens and to respect the public order.
Barriers to equality in education must be illuminated. Obvious restrictions upon the less
fortunate should also be stressed as targets to overcome.
There are additional qualities within an educational administrator that can impact
this issue of underutilization of GED programs in jails and prisons. Building a
relationship with students has been shown to increase learning outcomes as well as
participation according to Dinsmore & Wenger (2006). There must be an effort on the
behalf of educational administrators to emphasize that the importance of attaining an
education can overshadow the misgivings of life, when lacking a proper education.
26
Administrators need to study those under their charge. This means that lessons should be
relative to situations both current and future within a student’s life. According to Starratt
(1998), one should not approach the study of something superficially or carelessly,
because that violates the intrinsic integrity of what is being studied. Because it is known
by educational leaders, what the applicable barriers are to giving an equal opportunity to
students behind bars, it cannot be ignored that educational leaders must bridge the gaps to
contribute to increasing access and success rates among the incarcerated. Staratt
continues on to state that when we consciously distort what has been learned, we then
violate the integrity of what we learned. This most often happens in politics, economic,
and warfare. These three examples illustrate that when there is a pressure of social
responsibility (i.e. education), then the integrity of making choices associated with
standards yields to the interpretation of those in power.
Those whom have dropped out of school and have not completed a GED, are not
in the forethought of those in power. There needs to be a movement that brings our
society back to the point where re-integration back into society as a productive citizen is
as equally important to all dropouts alike. According to Delacruz (2005), civil society is
broadly defined as a sphere of society working for the common public good. The
resulting re-incarceration rates among those who are undereducated would imply that
society is not working for the common public good in this regard.
Levels of Education among Inmates
Again, according to Klein et al (2004), the incarcerated population in the U.S. has
been called the most educationally disadvantaged population in the United States. This is
27
not a frame of reference to indicate that opportunity to become educated is not available.
The indication by Klein et al, is that this population is often ignored. Over the last
decade, progress has been made. Inmates are slightly more educated than they were in
the late 1990’s. Harlow (2003) indicates that in 1997, forty one percent of state and
federal prison populations had achieved less than a high school diploma. More recent
numbers from 2004 indicate that only thirty four percent of the same population has
achieved less than a high school diploma. Even more supportive to this emphasis on
educational improvement, is the fact that the gap in educational accomplishment and
attainment among general population vs. incarcerated population is decreasing.
According to Greenberg, Dunleavy and Kutner (2007), the prison population has
a 39% rate of below basic literacy as compared to 21% of the general population. The
majority of males were represented as possessing high reading competency levels in the
general population versus those incarcerated. Females were represented consistently as
well for having higher reading proficiency levels in the general population versus those
incarcerated. In this same research based off of the National Center for Educational
Statistics, gender lines were drawn alongside general consensus. The research shows that
this is indeed a pattern among all prisoners.
The surprise in the data indicates that among race, these trends are reversed.
Whites in the general population generally possessed a higher level of proficiency versus
those incarcerated. Among Blacks and Hispanics, the data indicates that those
incarcerated possess a higher literacy rate versus those in the general population
(Greenberg et al., 2007).
28
Hispanic populations within the United States share the same poor economic
conditions as other minorities. One must take into account the illegal immigrant
population that may have never attended American public school systems, but weigh
heavily upon the statistics of the American justice system. Per an interview with Dr.
Lawanna Shelton (personal communication, 4/1/2009), Director of English Language
Learning at Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools, the Hispanic population comes from
a wide variation of places. They can come from Cuba where the literacy rate is above
90% or they can come from a Rancho in Mexico where the literacy rate is below five
percent. Either way, foreigners have to be taught English in school before a difference
can be made. Many of the illegal immigrants that end up in the Davidson County
Sheriff’s custody are lined up for eventual transfer and deportation through the 287 (g)
program. This 287 (g) program is a section of the Immigration and Nationality Act of
1995. According to the DCSO 287(g) Two Year Review (2009), the 287 (g) program is
an initiative that allows local law enforcement to perform certain functions of U.S.
immigration officers. These functions may include the capturing and processing of
people who have committed crimes as well as those who entered the country illegally.
As an educational administrator, it is unclear if this population should be included
in the overall statistics. There is no mention in the cited works for this research that
delineates between the populations of legal versus illegal aliens. Being an illegal
immigrant in custody, within the United States, has its privileges. While serving local
sentences, 287(g) inmates are eligible for GED and other educational courses within
Davidson County Sheriff’s Office. As such, proper materials and opportunities do exist
29
for all inmates. Lack of overall participation in these programs spans nationality, color,
and cultural experience. In 2007, some 56.1 percent of foreign-born Hispanics ages 18–
24 who were not currently enrolled in high school, had completed high school.
Compared to foreign-born Hispanics, status completion rates were higher for Hispanics
born in the United States (85.9 percent for “first generation” and 85.1 percent for “second
generation or higher”). In each immigrant category, Hispanics were less likely than nonHispanics to have earned any kind of high school credential (NCES, 2009).
Family Influence on Education and Incarceration
According to Perry (1993), children that grow up in poverty have a very honed
reflex to the environment in which they live. Single parent homes, homelessness, lack of
food, and proper nutrition all contribute to the mental and physical welfare of a growing
child. Over time, these surmounting inadequacies in a child’s life lead to more
manifestations of fear, anger, and sub-culture mentality. Perry states that from this
neglect, children in poverty live more by their “fight or flight” instincts. Their brains
have been built upon a stress response. These instincts are not conducive to a normal
“traditional” classroom setting. These “impoverished” children are more likely to
experience behavioral outbursts and labeling such as ADHD (Children’s Defense Fund,
2000). These “impoverished” children are likely to model behavior of their peers. The
result of this is an extrapolation of misaligned and antisocial behaviors. Poverty is not
drawn along race lines as much as it is among lines of socio-economic status and family
resources. Parental history plays a major role in the predictability of whether a person
30
will become incarcerated. A parent who has been incarcerated serves as a negative zone
of proximal development as the incarceration relates to offspring. According to
Bushfield (2004), incarcerated parents don’t spend time with their children, thus the
children are reared by extended family and neighborhood influences. As prison officials
are seeing second and third generation inmates from the same families, it would illustrate
that there are common denominators that are not genetically predisposed, but
environmental issues such as parenting that will cause higher rates of future inmates.
Bushfield goes on to mention that many of these incarcerated parents have multiple
children. This emphasizes that the problem of incarcerated family members multiplies
the impact of contact points by the number of people involved. For every one person
incarcerated, there may be up to 3-5 people affected who are not incarcerated.
Harlow (1997) states that adult children of incarcerated parents who are in prison
are more likely to have low educational attainment. This illustrates that lack of education
further limits future education within the same family. Winters (2000), states that
inmates often exhibit an absence of an internal locus of control, and a failure to
empathize with others. These issues are found to be key factors relative effective
parenting skills. Whether an inmate is a parent or a child, this antisocial curriculum
being taught is systemic in wreaking havoc among the lives of its victims.
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics report, Parents in Prison and their
Minor Children (2008), there were 1.5 million inmates in American prisons (excluding
jails). Of these inmates, over 809,000 had children under the age of eighteen. This same
31
study also points out the following facts with respect to the travesty of leaving children in
a parentless position:
-
These minor children totaled over 1.7 million in number, which was cited as
being over 2.3% of the United States population.
-
Twenty four percent of these children are aged four or younger.
-
Between 1991 and 2007, the number of incarcerated parents increased by 79% in
Federal and State prisons.
-
The number of incarcerated mothers during this period rose 131% as compared to
the number of fathers incarcerated at 77%.
-
Black children were 7.5 times more likely to have a parent in prison versus white
children. Hispanic children were 2.5 times more likely than white children to have
a parent imprisoned.
There is also data which suggests that these 1.7 million children will not see their
parents before they reach the age of 18. There are many parallels between povertystricken broken homes and those who are incarcerated. Children living in poverty don’t
receive any advantage by merely knowing that their parent is incarcerated and that a
disadvantage must be overcome. Roughly half of the incarcerated parents in state prisons
were the primary bread winner for their household before being incarcerated. Who takes
that responsibility in the parental attendance void? There are millions of children that
have parents whom are not in prison yet suffer the same disadvantages. Educational
deficiencies transfer from generation to generation. Worse than prison is death, as it
relates to single parent household disadvantages. There are millions of children that have
32
lost parents and siblings due to crime. Educational administrators have the awesome
responsibility of filling in the role of parent and advisor, among the many other scholastic
responsibilities. The report also indicates that male inmates refer to the children’s mother
as primary caregiver upon incarceration. When women were asked the same question,
they referred to the child’s grandparent as primary caregiver upon incarceration.
Grandparents being involved in care giving and education leads to a generational gap in
learning strategies and initiatives.
According to Torres-Velasquez (2000), members of the older generations can
never say they were young once when trying to relate to youth because they were never
young in the world of the current generation. Problems and concerns of one generation
are relegated to a point in history. Current generations can no more understand Slavery
and Jim Crowe any more than the elderly can understand web browsing on a cell phone.
One can sympathize, yet not empathize. Educational proclivity may fall by the wayside
when needing freedom, food, shelter, and clothing take precedent. Hagan (2003) states
that poor “families”, which are more likely to be headed by a single parent, have fewer
resources to restrain delinquency. Restraining delinquency would include maintaining
educational progression.
As educational administrators, objective planning for this young generation can
be undertaken to implement life skills and coping mechanisms. This can offset the
damage done to a student by the loss of a parent. Repeatedly, the research shows (Nuttall
et al., 2003) that catching pre-offender/students when they are young reduces the
33
chances that the student will go awry. This thwarts the possibility that a student will
become incarcerated through engaging in a life of crime.
Dropout & Inmate Efficacy and Self Esteem
According to Erwin (2009), approximately 82% of prisoners are at or below the
writing level of an 11 year old, and half of all prisoners do not have the skills required by
96% of jobs. Erwin also proffers that only one in five people in prison are able to
complete a job application. Post release opportunity limitations exist among the masses
of inmates. These limitations can be overcome through education. This gap creates a void
in curriculum that the educational administrator must address. How do you instill pride
and confidence into someone that has experienced failure for the majority of their lives?
The likelihood of financial success without an education is minimal. Campbell (2004)
states that as the gaps between lower and middle classes grow, our secondary schools
particularly in the inner cities, are increasingly ineffective in preparing non-college bound
students into a workforce that requires advanced education and computer skills.
Ellsworth, Person, Welborn & Frost (1991) conducted a study of inmates who
chose not to participate in prison educational programs. From their findings,
approximately 60% of those questioned, responded that the largest influence against
participation was lack of confidence. The stigma that is associated with being illiterate is
imposing upon those who can’t read. This creates an atmosphere of don’t ask don’t tell
on behalf of inmates and general population dropouts as well.
There has also been a distinction made between andragogy and pedagogy as those
who are adults have probably ended up in a facility though their own actions. This
34
enlightens inmates to the weight of their own responsibilities. This is different from
cursory education. The need for an education is placed upon the student by parent and
society. There are internal motivation components that make up the drive of an adult to
change his or her life. Again, within the general population, the burden of survival by
means of gainful employment is the biggest burden to finishing school. There has been
little study to this point that would specify the reasons for those who are in this country’s
jails and prisons. There is value, according to Smith and Silverman (1994), in efforts to
educate younger inmates yields the most positive results. Those who make the greatest
gains have not had the long life of initial experience and recidivism. Repeated failure and
exclusion from the American dream causes those who are marginalized to create their
own American Dream.
Inmates have high self-esteem and are on average willing to use their skill sets in
unconventional ways. Most often these unconventional ways are also illegal ways.
According to Greenberg, Dunleavy & Kutner (2007), Black and Hispanic adult prisoners
have a higher rate of prose literacy than Black and Hispanic adults in the general
population. Many times it is not the intelligence level that creates barriers and success
patterns, as much as it may be education levels which lead to sustainable living wages.
According to Horton (1994), inner city kids are motivated and eager to learn until
they encounter inexperienced teachers and underfunded schools. Horton goes on to state
that most inner city schools are bleak fortresses with rooting classrooms and few
amenities that inspire or motivate the young, whereas wealthy suburbs have the finest
schools and best paid teachers. Siegal and Senna (1994), state that juveniles rationalize
35
crime as a normal response to existing social conditions. To these juveniles, crime
becomes an acceptable means to secure mainstream society’s highly materialistic
standard of success. It is difficult for the young, from lower income areas, to move above
and beyond this type of existence. This is especially relevant when students can
comprehend that they are not a priority to the establishment.
Efficacy and self-esteem are primarily based upon social condition and
association among peers. According to Horton et al (1994), these associations help
determine whether gain of pursuing the illegal activity is more attractive than abstaining
from breaking the law. Classroom education is not a determining factor in producing
success or failure in ones pursuit of material items, which represent a “micro-class”
system of re- evaluation in priorities among the impoverished. Campbell (2004)
illustrates this by stating that teen pregnancies are at record levels because young innercity girls have little else that by which they can claim success. By completing a
pregnancy and giving birth to another person, they can finally claim an accomplishment.
It has been shown that those inmates that have become much too familiar with the
penal system do not react to incarceration in the same way. Some don’t see education as
being capable of changing their life’s course. Education of inmates under the age of 21
drastically increased probabilities that inmates will not return to prison within five years
(Nuttall et al., 2003). The older the inmate becomes, the less belief in self-efficacy they
possess. There is also a decrease in believing in an internal locus of control. Everything
happens to the inmate instead of the inmate being responsible for their own condition
(Bushfield, 2004).
36
The lack of education among prisoners in our society creates more crime and
higher recidivism. “Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to
be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives”
(James Madison, 1822). Not having an education lends itself to being involved in
activities that are not productive. These non- productive activities include but are not
limited to the following; burglary, rape, illegal narcotic distribution, theft, and assault.
These are the major categories for which law enforcement keeps active statistics. When a
student is arrested and sent to jail for an offense, there is no obligation to continue
cursory education if a person is over 18 years of age. This presents a problem as this
inmate will eventually become a citizen again, this time being older with an even less
commensurate education. There is no dialogue between the students past and future
educators occurring behind bars. The student vacillates between two worlds. One world
exists in which education is important to the student, and another world where education
is not. The student is forced to begin all over again upon release with basic rules of
society and engagement to societal normality. To an educational administrator, the
responsibility and processes of educating students should not be dictated by the location
or the legal circumstance of a student.
When crime is high, there is an inordinate amount of money that has to be
allocated from municipal budgets to keep criminal threats off of the streets. From this
increased funding to corrections, there are trends which pull this funding from social
programs that are not deemed to be as equally important.
37
With decreasing fiscal allocations to public schools, it is important for educational
administrators to divert children from criminal activity to educational activity.
By actively increasing education, we can actively decrease truancy and transgressions
against the law.
When an inmate is incarcerated, they have the opportunity to contribute to
changing the direction of their life within the facility walls. Programs such as General
Education Degree, Adult Basic Education, and Vocational Programs are available to
assist in the changing of direction. While it is mandated in certain federal and state
facilities that inmates must participate as a part of their incarceration or pre- release
conditioning, many inmates face obstacles that prohibit this from happening.
Environmental Influences/ Gang Culture in Prison
According to O’Hare (2009), who wrote “The forgotten fifth; Children of poverty
in rural America”, it is asserted that children in rural America are poorer than those in
urban areas. This is a resource problem more so than a race problem according to
O’Hare. According to Campbell (2004), children who live in poverty are extremely
marginalized. These children end up with poor educations because their schools have
poor resources and under qualified teachers. Coupled with the lack of resources is the
lack of parental support in the home. The negative cycle of behavior and incarceration
now ensues. To support the claim of Campbell, refer to Wester, Klykamp & Rosenfeld
(2006). Their study supports that the lack of education leads to the lack of employment.
Wester et al, found that for Blacks and Whites, high school drop outs are about five times
more likely to go to prison in a given year than men who completed high school. More
38
disparagingly, their data indicates that rates for prison admission for Blacks, is five to ten
times more likely than Whites, based on racial factors alone. Most pronounced of all
their findings is that the relative risk rate of imprisonment of a Black male high school
dropout is more than 250 times more likely than for a college educated White male.
According to former TDCO Commissioner, George Little (personal
communication, March 3, 2009), future incarceration rates are based upon third grade
truancy rates. “These third graders are going to learn from their instructors in school or
their friends on the street” (Little, 2009). This behavior continues throughout the life of a
person that does not value a formal education. Using friends as a support system such as
a street gang only illustrates Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. These manufactured families
take care of a person’s basic needs for the remainder of a poor person’s life. Even as
adults, psychological barriers often present challenges that make it difficult to advance
their lives through the medium of education. Barriers to this education may be
institutional, informational, situational, or psychological (Goto & Martin, 2009).
Another psychological barrier that inmates experience manifests from peer
relationships. These relationships extend from the streets and carries on inside the cell
walls of an institution. There are gangs and organized criminals inside the walls just as
there are in the general population. Inside of the prison walls, these criminal enterprises
are able to draw from a consistently regenerating pool of candidates (Cuthbertson, 2004).
The organizational structure is similar if not the same. Those who bond together have a
greater chance of survival. Through these organizations, a shared vision or direction is
mandated. If education is not part of the vision, then there will be no inmate student.
39
To initiate alleviation of some certain peer pressures that go along with the jail
environment, administrators must form moral communities. These communities can only
be built around rehabilitating offenders that believe that education is a necessary
component of a renewed quality of life (Rose & Voss, 2003).
According to Edwards (2000), peer pressure and facility environment can be
improved to support prison educational goals. The first step is to build a new peer culture
that allows meaningful conversation among peers. Inmate students tend to have more
conversations among one another rather than to facility staff. This voice among peers
leads to the feeling of inclusiveness among inmates. The second step in this process is to
implement a process of facilitating rational inquiry. Edwards states that rational inquiries
help communities deal with unexpected events and adjust modes of operation as needed.
This instills trust among the new group. All members must feel that the group has their
best interest at heart. The third step to help build new peer culture is to ensure that each
member has the freedom to work out personal agendas within the context of community
life. These new peer members will learn what benefits them individually as well as what
benefits the group as a whole.
These steps can be used in principle for both school activities as well as building a
criminal enterprise. A role of the educational administrator is to keep the lines of
communication open for those afraid of losing their “street” family as a result of
attending classes while incarcerated. To add to this complex process of creating the
milieu of a learning organization, it must also be understood that educating an adult is
fundamentally different from educating children and adolescents (Knowles, 1984).
40
These adults are very specific in their view of what will benefit them and what will not.
These interpretations are based upon their experiences in the general population before
they were locked up. Many times the perceived educational need is tied to what was
available in the neighborhood job market. Bourgois (1995) identified entrepreneurial
gangs as a key source of economic opportunity for young men in urban communities
characterized by chronically high rates of joblessness. Peer pressure and entrepreneurial
gangs have forced many to vacillate between real economic opportunity now and possible
opportunity later. Legitimate opportunity is dependent upon the completion of school.
The Prison Environment and Education
According to California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Report
(2008), lockdowns, staffing vacancies, and current funding structures limit the attendance
of those inmates actually enrolled in educational programs. CDCR also reports that
during 2006–07 on average only 43 % of all enrolled inmates were in class each day. On
a local level, Davidson County Sheriff Office participant numbers are even less, but
consistently low as compared to CDCR. According to Wilkes (2010), out of the total
held DCSO population of approximately 4100 inmates serving local sentences, only 30%
(1240) are enrolled in some type of educational program. CDCR states that the failure of
inmates to enroll and attend classes on a consistent basis is an important operational
problem because it significantly reduces the effectiveness of these educational programs.
It is imperative that prisoners make the 90 day investment to change their lives. There are
few opportunities for a person with a jail record to find gainful employment upon release.
41
It is even more difficult for an undereducated inmate to be a contender in existing
competitive job markets. If inmates are sent back out on to the streets with no
educational improvement, they are bound to repeat their transgressions. There has been a
failure to find out why society chooses to increase correctional budgets, yet not deem
education to be more important as a cure to crime. There has also been a failure to
realize that there is an opportunity in correcting the educational problem while prison
administrators have possession of misguided under educated prisoners. Prison and Jail
administrators must take advantage of this opportunity to mandate that inmates must
participate in improving their knowledge and acceptable societal behavior practices while
incarcerated.
According to Tewksbury, Erickson, and Taylor (2000), directors of correctional
education programs have indicated that on average 41% of the prisoner population is
eligible to participate in post secondary correctional education programming. The
Bureaus of Justice Statistics stated that in 2004, participation overall of inmates involved
in educational programs had decreased 5.2% over the preceding six years. It has been
questioned by many experts as to why the numbers are decreasing in participation. One
hypothesis proffers that there are disparities between eligibility and participation rates
(Tewksbury et al., 2000). There is not enough funding to properly accommodate the ever
increasing number of inmates. According to the Maryland General Assembly in 2003,
there was a waiting list that exceeded their program capacity by over 2000 inmates.
42
Reducing Recidivism
According to the National Institute for literacy (2007), recidivism is common
among offenders of all crimes. More than two thirds of released inmates were rearrested
within three years of their leaving jail (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2002). However,
rates of re-arrest, reconviction, and re-incarceration are all lower for those inmates who
participated in correctional education programs. In addition, the National Institute for
Literacy states that non-participants in correctional education were re-arrested at a rate of
57.0% compared to 48.0% for those who did participate in correctional education. Just as
well, those who were involved in correctional education were re-convicted at a rate of
27.0% while non-participants were reconvicted at a rate of 35.0%. Re-incarceration rates
for non-participants were 10.0% higher than for those who took part in correctional
education. As Socrates proffered in the Allegory of the Cave, those who live in the dark
will not readily accept the light of the sun should they leave the cave. They must learn
the rules of the outside world in order to accept the limitations of the world inside the
cave. Those inmates who enter prison seldom participate in education as they don’t see
education being the change agent in their lives within the jail culture. As Goto & Martin
(2009) stated, when there is a clear idea of what inmates want to accomplish, they are
more likely to complete the GED class.
There are a myriad of other studies dating back two decades that support the same
conclusions. Those who earn a GED/ABE or vocational degree while incarcerated have
lower recidivism rates. There are however, multiple types of classified recidivism.
43
When an inmate is released, there are certain conditions that must be met to continue
probationary allowances. A probationer or parolee must maintain contact with their postrelease probation or parole officer. The inmate must find a job. The inmate must pay
fees for his or her parole/probation. Inmates must pass random drug and alcohol testing.
In addition to walking this prescribed fine line, inmates must return to their original preincarceration environment. There are those that violate post-release conditions imposed
by probation or parole. Then there are those that re-offend and commit additional crimes.
Among the acknowledgement that re-entering society post-release is difficult,
notice should be given to the biases that exist. There is already the barrier of competing
with low income workers, migrant workers, and general laborers. In addition to these
competition barriers, there are many state laws that prohibit participation in a myriad of
professions for ex-convicts. Legislation allows for the private sector to discriminate
against this population as well. Many of these inmates understand that there will be
increased odds against their success upon reintegration into society.
As the odds rise against success of an inmate succeeding in the proper legal
manner, the justice system lies in wait to catch the inmate returning home to what they
know. In many cases, this is most often illegal activity because inmates have repeatedly
been at a loss when attempting to earn a legitimate wage. According to Kjelsberg &
Friestad (2008), male prisoners demonstrated that they were two to three times more
likely to offend if they fulfilled any ONE of the following criteria: having experienced
the incarceration of a family member during childhood, having had child care services
intervene during childhood; having current drug abuse; having current housing problems.
44
The greatest correlate for re-offending among females was current drug abuse. We can
date the severity of impact of these problems back to research from 72 years ago.
According to Mertons’ (1938), Theory of Anomie proffers that poverty is directly
responsible for criminal behavior. In his view, he argues that deviant behavior is a
function of not having equal access to opportunity in the social structure. Hence, crime is
more likely to occur in poor communities. Merton’s theory places the blame and the
responsibility on the community i.e. the community of capitalism in which we live.
Expected Post Release Value of a GED
Ogbu (1987) notes that the reason for low participation in prison education
programs was directly related to perceived barriers to employment in the workforce. To
the support of this claim, it does not take school- book education to commit crimes.
Cuthbertson (2004) states that prison reformers have long been aware that the cellblock is
a school for criminals. He also states that jail is where the petty offender graduates into
organized crime. Contributing factors are identified and supported by research. The
following peripheral factors are but a few that would warrant further discussion in more
direct research.
Employment Rates of Inmates
According to Case and Fasenfest (2004), a GED does make a difference, but
doesn’t go as far a college or vocational training. College or vocational training reduces
recidivism more than high school/GED however; does not necessarily increase
employability or decrease stigmatization post release. Pavis (2002), states that issues rise
45
when a prisoner who had a decent job before going in, has been out of the job market
over a period when job skills and condition have undergone significant changes.
Emotional Impediments
Vacca (2004) offered that effective education programs are those that help
prisoners with their social skills, artistic development and techniques and strategies to
help them deal with their emotions. In addition, these programs emphasize academic,
vocational and social education. Vacca also goes on to state that education programs not
only need to teach inmates how to read effectively, but also provide them with the
necessary reinforcement that promotes a positive transition to society when they are
released.
According to Fabelo (2002), purposely set barriers include background checks
before employment, limitations on the types of jobs that can be held, limitations on the
types of licenses that can be held. There are restrictions on receiving public assistance
(housing interruptions are previously mentioned and documented to increase
incarceration rates). There are also limitations to substance abuse, and mental health
services. There is no degree that can be earned that will circumvent these issues.
Community Reintegration Programs
According to Boutellier (1998), the key to staying out of prison and recidivating is
to become successfully reintegrated into community. They state that successful
reintegration is dependent upon finding employment and housing. Also re-establishing
family networks and being accepted within the community as a productive member.
46
To the contrary, the researcher asks, what type of community are these recently released
inmates returning to? If one is returning to a community that thrives and survives off of
crime, and becomes re- integrated, aren’t these inmates being successfully accepted back
into their communities? The research that exists does not make any correlation between
the mission of corrections when the reality and the existence of the community happens
to practice derivatives of criminal enterprise(s).
Family Involvement and Mentoring
Stephens (1992) states that students who dropped out and later became inmates,
spent less time in extracurricular activities and very little time with a school counselor.
These inmates also blamed poor socioeconomic conditions and poor role models as major
reasons for their criminal activity. The value and benefit of positive prison role models
becomes invaluable when considering jail or prison extracurricular activities.
Age of Participation in GED Programs
Nuttall et al (2003), state that it is much more impactful for an inmate under the
age of 21 to earn a GED while incarcerated than for those over 21. There is a stronger
relationship between GED attainment and return to custody. Cited for this were several
reasons, of which were the following:
-
Younger inmates may have more motivation.
-
Older inmates experienced reduced recidivism due to age increase.
-
Younger inmates had more options post release, as a result of not being
considered a career criminal.
47
Manufactured Educational Inmate Cohorts
With respect to influencing the creation of educational milieu, facility
administrators can create environments that benefit the student as well as society.
Cazden (1998) suggests that schools act as cultural enterprises where members learn to
act and talk together in socially acceptable ways. All of the intelligence tests and
entrance exams are designed merely to give us a snapshot of predictability, as to whether
one is likely to finish a program. The monetary factor is not as predictable. There are no
funds to waste when state and federal budgets are slim.
There are however, ways to ensure that once a student is enrolled, the
predictability of retention is increased. Because of scant resources, many classes are held
in a cohort fashion. There are uniform start and stop points in the GED program.
Through the concept of cohort programming or learning communities, students are able
to enter a program of study together. These students will continue in this program of
study from beginning to end, while learning together as a group. It has been shown that
two primary contributing factors to students dropping out or transferring from a school
program, are lack of support and resources (Seifert, 2006). Cabrera (1993) stated that
“institutional characteristics that enter into the enrollment decision process include
academic program availability and orientation. Price, location, reputation, sponsorship
and control, and the condition of the physical plant are considered”. Lorenzetti (2003)
found that a support network was imperative for the success of students. Support of
family was the greatest contributor cited in this regard. As it resembles a community,
family can be assimilated within an educational format. This semblance of a family is
48
very prevalent within the same gang culture, both on the street and inside the jail facility.
There is strength in numbers. From these amalgamated tribes of street soldiers, there are
often reassembled variations behind bars, once members are incarcerated. Whether in
school, on the recreational yard, these relationships and pseudo families can be created
anywhere based upon shared values and circumstances. In this sense, school can be held
anywhere and everywhere. Most often, a set of survival skills is to be learned by those
living in poverty.
The research of Dinsmore & Wenger (2006) reported that schools act as cultural
enterprises where members learn to act and talk together in socially acceptable ways.
Building cohorts is based on building a community of learners. The communities can be
built of activities that are undertaken by groups of students on a daily basis. Taking this
statement to task, schools can exist anywhere and at anytime. According to Haralambos
(1991), the “hidden curriculum” consists of those things pupils learn through the
experience of attending school rather than the stated educational objectives of such
institutions. For those in the general public population, Potts & Schultz (2007) found that
peer support was no longer as important as committing to an academic program and
being satisfied with faculty interaction. It is important for the educational administrator
at the teaching level as well as the policy level to become more involved in the lives of
students.
Administrators guide the experience that students have whether in the open
population classroom or the prison classroom. This research attempted to grasp an
49
understanding as to what needs to be created in order to initiate more of a commitment to
an academic program by individuals that are incarcerated. According to Rose and Voss
(2003), correctional students need teachers and leaders who are committed to
rehabilitating offenders and who believe in education as a necessary component of
rehabilitation and renewed quality of life. Teachers who are experts in their field are also
needed. They need to offer challenging curriculum and assignments. Rose and Voss
(2003) also report that these teachers need to be able to create a learning environment that
fosters respect between all students as well as the teacher.
Summary
Through the progression of this literature review, the researcher has sought to
illustrate the fact that drop outs exist for many reasons. There are distinct contributing
factors for those who are in the general population and choose to drop out of school.
Those who are involved in the legal system and incarcerated may face an inherently
different set of circumstances. Unfortunately, there is little to no research as to why such
populations don’t take advantage of GED programs. Research illustrates that there is a
vast majority of inmates that lack an acceptable level of education and literacy prose.
There is much research that addresses inmates that have enrolled in various
educational programs while incarcerated. There is again, very little information on those
inmates who are eligible, yet choose to abstain from enrolling. In the general population,
drop outs delay schooling because of family obligations and budgetary priorities. These
issues are non-existent for inmates while incarcerated. This study reviewed a series of
50
possible barriers that contribute to the general population. This was also a review of
possible barriers that are unique to the jail/prison environment.
This study has added knowledge to the existing body of research. Removing or
lowering the impact of these perceived barriers allows educational activity to increase.
Illustrated in this review of the literature, the myriad of social and economic issues that
plague the poor and marginalized are incalculable. A GED education does not overcome
all of the issues mentioned. The GED leads to more of an internal accomplishment that
can bear fruit for a lifetime. According to the research in this review of literature, earning
a GED is but the first step to hopefully continuing ones education either academically or
vocationally. When involving petty criminals, teaching an inmate to read offers a greater
benefit than teaching a reader to earn a GED (Crayton et al., 2007). The prison of
poverty is more brutal than that of any physical institution. Poverty cannot be eliminated
by a release date. One must understand that as a result of being merely born in poverty,
there are many more obstacles that stand between a person and their dreams.
The most recent study in this region (Moeller, 2004) focuses on those who are
enrolled but do not finish. There are other studies that focus on recidivism, enrollment,
and future projections of populations. These studies are approximately 5-10 years old.
It is important to gain fresh data from surveying newer inmates.
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
The purpose of this chapter is to explain the practices and procedures that were
implemented to carry out this study. This chapter is divided into 6 sections. The first
section addressed the research design. The second section explains the data collection
procedures. The third section addresses the description of the population and sample.
The fourth section addresses data analysis procedures. The fifth section addresses the
tool or instrumentation used in this study. The final section addresses the research
hypotheses.
The purpose of this study was to determine factors that have an impact on
inmates’ decision to participate in GED programs at a correctional institution. There are
a number of supposed contributing factors to success and failure of these groups as it
relates to participating in GED programs. Factors explored by this study were preincarceration education experience, self-concept and efficacy, family environment, peer
influence, and perceived post release value of a GED.
Research Design
This research is descriptive in nature, using data collection and data analysis to
answer research questions. This study is quantitative in design and is a survey based
research study. Creswell (2005) defines descriptive research as a study that will best
describe the attitudes and perceptions of the study participants. Most descriptive studies
obtain information about preferences, attitudes, practices, concerns or interests.
52
Creswell (2005) also states that descriptive studies collect numerical data to test
hypotheses or to answer questions about current status of a subject of study. This study
explores a framework to determine where explanations of differences which may exist
between certain factors that affect an inmate’s perception and the effect of these
perceptions on an inmate’s decision to enroll in a GED program. This study is also
inferential in nature. Inferential data should be general enough to be applied across a
range of situations when a finite answer is not available (Wikipedia, 2010). This study
can provide information on the population and sample surveyed during the specific time
it was conducted. This study can also provide information on the target population
surveyed. The results can be used when making decisions regarding the creation and
maintenance of programs in jails/prisons.
The responses from inmates were reviewed in the form of numbers. These
numbers represented responses from a questionnaire in Likert scale format. This format
is also known as “scoring data”. Scoring data means that the researcher will assign a
numeric score or value to each response category for each question in the instrument used
for data collection (i.e. survey). This allowed a participants’ personal experience to be
explained through various numerical data obtained by the study as perception will be
tabulated as ordinal data on a Likert scale. As opposed to hypothetical results, we have
received actual raw numerical data from current inmates. This research design was
chosen as it allowed the reporting of inmate perception and experience as it relates to
specific factors that affect enrollment in a GED program.
53
Target Population
The target populations used for this study were incarcerated individuals held in
DCSO custody. The participants for this study included incarcerated individuals that
have both initiated participation in a GED program while incarcerated and those who
have not sought to participate. DCSO compiles information about inmates as they are
processed through the booking department. These inmates were housed at the Offender
Re-entry Center (ORC) which is located at 5131 Harding Rd, Nashville TN. This facility
holds approximately 300 inmates. The secondary facility surveyed, which is called the
Correctional Development Center, is located adjacent to the ORC at 5113 Harding Road.
This facility houses approximately 750 inmates enrolled in various drug and alcohol
treatment programs. These inmates attempt to complete these programs pre-release.
DCSO had the ability to identify those inmates who were eligible to participate in this
study. ORC inmates alone did not constitute a large enough sample with respect to
willingness to participate in this study. It was necessary to distribute surveys in the
second facility (CDC). Inmates without a GED or high school diploma equivalency
were somewhat reluctant to participate and admit shortcomings. However, DCSO jails
have a relatively diverse population with respect to age, nationality, and length of
sentence, which lends a great value to those who chose to participate. The Davidson
County Sheriff’s Office (DCSO) in Nashville, TN made inmates available for this study
at the researchers requested times and dates.
Both jail facilities researched were relatively close in proximity to downtown
Nashville. DCSO operates in an urban setting, serving a major metropolitan area of
54
approximately 526 square miles and over 619,000 people as of the 2007 census estimate.
DCSO books approximately 90,000 people per year for crimes of all types. From this
population, there are those who are released pending court dates, those who are held
pending court dates, those who have already been sentenced, and those being held for
deportation. The range of educational attainment is also diverse. There were inmates
with college degrees all the way across the spectrum to those who had dropped out of
school without attaining high school equivalency. Again, this study sought to find out
why inmates, who are eligible, do not take advantage of the GED program.
Sampling Method
The sampling method employed for this study was convenience sampling.
Convenience sampling was used as it lends itself to who is available at the time of the
study. Convenience sampling is a type of non-probability sampling. It involves the
sample being drawn from that part of the population which is both relevant and reachable
by the researcher. Non- program participants were identified by entering the facility
residence pods. The researcher explained the purpose of the study and then openly
requested non-enrolled, but eligible volunteers within housing pods. GED program
participants were identified by attending GED classes within the facilities. The same
explanation of the purpose of the study was given and volunteers were requested.
Instrumentation
In 1984, Darkenwald & Valentine created a tool to measure the perceptions of
dropouts and what it would take in order for them to re-enroll in schools to complete their
high school equivalency. This instrument was named the DPSG (Deterrents to
55
Participation Scale-G). The DPSG was originally used to measure the overall
perceptions and expectations for dropouts in the general population. The DPSG has gone
through several modifications. It has also been validated in successive research.
According to King (2002), the version used of the DPSG had an alpha reliability
coefficient of .91. Perceptions were sought to find out why and when most drop outs
sought to re enroll into school to finish their GED/high school equivalency. The
instrument for this study was an adaptation of the DPSG. Permission was granted by
Gordon Darkenwald to use and alter tool for the use of this research. The researcher has
adapted the DPSG survey for a varied list of pertinent topical interests as they relate to
the subjects. There were a total of 42 questions on the tool for this study. These
questions were answered in the Likert Scale format. The participant answers held the
values as follows; 1=strongly agree, 2=agree, 3=no opinion, 4=disagree, 5=strongly
disagree, as they relate to subject matter.
There were six general topics which included pre-incarceration educational
experience, self concept and efficacy, family environment, peer influence, facility
environment, and perceived post- release value of a GED. A panel of experts was
formed by the researcher to examine the survey. The group edited the survey and made
suggestions for content and validity. These changes to the survey included adding
content questions relating to jail facility influence. Changes also included adjusting the
number of questions in the tool in order to adapt it from the use in the general population
to the use in jails/prisons. Changes were also made to the tool to reflect the specific
nature of participants being sought. Because this tool was given to both those who have
56
participated in GED programming and those who have not participated in a GED
program, it was important to word the questions in a dignified manner.
The group of experts consisted of Dr. Trinetia Respress from Tennessee State
University, Mr. Parrish Godchild Ed.S., Mr. Fred Harris M.Ed., Dr. Rubin Cockrell of
Children and Family Services of Nashville, and Dr. Calvin Brown from Tennessee State
University. This panel of experts had experience in the education of at risk and
incarcerated students. The reliability of the tool was tested by pilot study. The pilot
study consisted of surveying inmates in DCSO custody. It was important to retest the
reliability and validity of the DPSG since the researcher has modified the tool for this
study. The results of the surveys were analyzed and tested for internal consistency using
the Chronbach Alpha. This test is commonly used as a measure of the internal
consistency or reliability of a psychometric test score for a sample of examinees. It was
first named as alpha by Lee Chronbach in 1951. The pilot study for this research
revealed that the modified DPSG survey held a Chronbach Alpha of .959, which is a
relatively high level of consistency.
Data Collection Procedures
First and foremost, the data collection process was undertaken using the utmost
respect to individuals and institutions involved. Initially, approval was granted by DCSO
to conduct this study. Rules and regulations were forwarded to the researcher to ensure
adherence to DCSO policies and procedures. Before the collection of data began, the
researcher submitted drafts of both the informed consent form and the survey tool which
was used, to DCSO and Tennessee State University Institutional Review Board (IRB).
57
The Tennessee State University IRB approved the instrument submitted and granted the
continuation of the study. The identity of all study subjects were protected by anonymity.
The researcher only asked for DCSO inmate numbers and signatures on the informed
consent form. These inmate numbers represented a coding mechanism for the
researchers recording purposes. There were no printed names on the surveys. DCSO
possesses the corresponding names for all inmate numbers. All consent forms were held
under locked file cabinet in the possession of the researcher. The data was not shared
with any participants or people outside of the study.
The researcher conducted the surveying of the inmates in the presence of a DCSO
facility educational staff member. For the male population, Dr. Ed Marks assisted in the
gathering of inmates for surveying. For the female population, Mrs. Sybil Pruitt assisted
with the gathering of inmates for surveying. Rather than identifying inmates by roster
and having them attend a survey session at the education labs within the facilities, the
researcher went into individual cell pods to explain the purpose of this study. Upon
completion of the explanation, the researcher asked all inmates to participate should they
have or not have a high school diploma or GED equivalency. Even though the staff
possessed the names of those identified not to have completed high school, by DCSO
intake information, the researcher felt it best to ask all inmates regardless of the list, in
order to mitigate any embarrassment or hesitancy. Once an inmate raised their hand to
participate, they were handed a survey and a writing utensil. The inmate would then sit at
58
a table in the day room/common area, to fill out the survey. Of the surveys distributed,
there was a 100% return rate.
Data collection in person proved to contribute to decreased time that it took to
recover surveys, as well as an increase in the response rate by study subjects. The
directions on the survey were clear and concise for all participants to understand. The
directions were not complicated or ambiguous so as to cause confusion or
misunderstandings. For those inmates who could not read, the survey questions were
read in private by the researcher for the inmate to answer.
Data Analysis
The data was analyzed and reviewed using SPSS for Windows, Version 17.0.
The researcher input the data. Each survey item was given a value. All names on the
surveys were then transposed into ID numbers. Demographics were coded consistent
with the survey tool. Responses from the survey questions were entered into SPSS in
numerical format.
The data was gathered in ordinal scale format, but entered as integers. Ordinal
measurements describe order, but not relative size or degree of difference between the
items measured. In this scale type, the numbers assigned to objects or events represent
the rank order. This is often used in psychological experiments that measure attributes
along an arbitrary scale, such as a Likert Scale, between two extremes.
This study employs parametric statistical techniques for conducting the
quantitative analysis, specifically logistic multiple regression. For this analysis,
59
parametric statistics represent a branch of statistics that assumes data comes from a type
of probability distribution and makes inferences about the parameters of the distribution.
This type of analysis requires that the data also supplies the model structure as well as
future predictions on producing future models for administrative application.
The first analysis was done to compare those who participated in GED
programming against those who did not participate by performing a bivariate Chi Square
category analysis among the categories of previous school experience, self concept and
efficacy, home/family influence, peer influence, facility influence, and post release
expectation of a GED. This chi square analysis was performed to identify whether
differences existed between groups when identifying survey categories in their entirety.
The researcher then performed a logistic linear multiple regression analysis to
measure the differences between the explanatory variables and the dependent variable
(participation in the GED program) at the individual survey question level. As
parametric data was collected, multiple regression analysis makes use of several predictor
variables that may be either numerical or categorical. The test employed would help us
to understand how the typical value of the dependent variable changes when any one of
the independent variables is varied, while the other independent variables are held fixed.
Most commonly, regression analysis estimates the conditional expectation of the
dependent variable given the independent variables - that is, the average value of the
dependent variable when the independent variables are held fixed (Wiki, 2010).
The study identified differences between populations of inmates who were
eligible to participate in GED programs. One group participated and one group did not
60
participate. The two groups were compared when considering factors labeled as previous
school experiences, self concept and efficacy, perceptions of family, environment, peer
influences, facility resources, perceived post release value of a GED, and their possible
impact on student participation. The data was then cleaned for erroneous or missing data.
Erroneous date means any data in a respective field that is outside the parameters set for
representative definitions. An example of this would be to receive a response with a
value below 1 or above the number 5. Missing data means that there was no answer or
response representative to any question on the survey.
The secondary purpose of this study identified differences between those inmates
that chose to participate in a GED program while incarcerated and those inmates that did
not when considering age, gender, marital status, parental status, school equivalency,
sentence length, location of residence, and life satisfaction as it relates to enrolling in a
GED program while incarcerated. The researcher evaluated the data using parametric
procedures.
Hypotheses
The general hypothesis is that there is no difference between participants in a
GED program and non participants while incarcerated, when considering specific factors.
Research hypotheses as rendered by previous research questions are yielded in the null as
the following:
Ho1:
There is no statistically significant difference between eligible inmates
who chose to participate and those who did not participate in GED programming
when considering pre-incarceration educational experience.
61
Ho2:
There is no statistically significant difference between eligible inmates
who chose to participate and those who did not participate in GED programming
when considering self-concept and efficacy.
Ho3:
There is no statistically significant difference between eligible inmates
who chose to participate and those who did not participate in GED programming
when considering home/family environment.
Ho4:
There is no statistically significant difference between eligible inmates
who chose to participate and those who did not participate in GED programming
when considering peer influence.
Ho5:
There is no statistically significant difference between eligible inmates
who chose to participate and those who did not participate in GED programming
when considering jail facility environment.
Ho6:
There is no statistically significant difference between eligible inmates
who chose to participate and those who did not participate in GED programming
when considering perceived post-release value.
Ho7: There is no statistically significant difference between eligible inmates who
chose to participate and those who did not participate in GED programming when
considering demographics such as age, gender, marital status, school equivalency,
sentence length, location of residence, and life satisfaction.
CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS OF DATA
The purpose of this study was to examine factors that have an impact on inmates’
decision to participate in GED programs at a correctional institution. Inmates
participating and not participating in GED programming were surveyed. These factors
with possible impact on decision included pre-incarceration educational experiences, selfconcept and efficacy, family environment support systems, peer influences, prison
environment, and post-release value of a GED. The secondary purpose of this study was
to identify differences between eligible inmates who chose to participate and those who
did not participate in GED programming when considering inmate demographics such as
age, gender, marital status, school equivalency, sentence length, location of residence,
and life satisfaction.
Considering the purposes presented, this study focused on the following research
hypotheses:
1. There is no statistically significant difference between those inmates who
chose to enroll in GED programming and those who did not enroll when
considering pre-incarceration educational experiences.
2. There is no statistically significant difference between those inmates who
chose to enroll in GED programming and those who did not enroll when
considering self-concept and efficacy.
63
3. There is no statistically significant difference between those inmates who
chose to enroll in GED programming and those who did not enroll when
considering home/family environment support systems.
4. There is no statistically significant difference between those inmates who
chose to enroll in GED programming and those who did not enroll when
considering peer influences.
5. There is no statistically significant difference between those inmates who
chose to enroll in GED programming and those who did not enroll when
considering jail facility environment.
6. There is no statistically significant difference between those inmates who
chose to enroll in GED programming and those who did not enroll when
considering post release value of a GED.
7. There is no statistically significant difference between those inmates enrolled
in GED programming and those eligible, but not enrolled when considering
age, gender, marital status, school equivalency, sentence length, location of
residence, and life satisfaction.
A logistic linear multiple regression analysis was used to analyze Research
Hypotheses 1 through 7.
64
Descriptive Findings
The sample of this study consisted of 113 inmates held in the custody of the
Davidson County Sheriff’s Office in Nashville, Tennessee. These 113 inmates were held
in jail either awaiting trial, bail, or serving shorter sentences. Inmates had been in custody
anywhere from a number of days to a number of months. The sample consisted of 71
males, 40 females, and two respondents who opted not to indicate gender on the survey.
Please refer to Table 1 for frequency and respective percentiles.
Table 1
Demographic Background Information by Gender
Variable
Gender
Frequency
%
Female
40
35.4
Male
71
62.8
2
1.8
Did not respond
Total
113
100________
The sample consisted of 77 (N=77) inmates that were not participating in the
GED program and 36 (N=36) inmates that were participating in the GED program while
this study was conducted. Please refer to Table 2 for frequency and respective
percentiles.
65
Table 2
Demographic Background Information by Participation
________________________________________________________________________
Variable
Frequency
%
Participation
Non participant
77
68.1
Participant
36
31.9
0
0
Did not respond
Total
113
100________
When analyzing data related to age, there were 51 inmates in the age range of 18
to 30. There were 45 inmates in the age range of 31 to 45. There were 12 inmates in the
age range of 46 to 54. There were two inmates that were over the age of 55. There were
three respondents that declined to indicate their age. Please refer to Table 3 for frequency
and respective percentiles.
Table 3
Demographic Information by Age
Variable
Age
Total
Frequency
%
18-30
51
45.1
31-45
45
39.8
46-54
12
10.6
55 and over
2
1.8
Did not respond
3
2.7
113
100
66
When analyzing data related to high school equivalent education, it was found
that 15 inmates had at least one year of high school. It was reported that 24 inmates had
experienced two years of high school equivalent education. It was also reported that 43
inmates had three years of high school equivalent education. Lastly, it was reported that
19 inmates had the experience of four years of high school education. Twelve inmates
did not respond to this question. Please refer to Table 4 for frequency and respective
percentiles.
Table 4
Demographic information by Years of High School Education
Variable
Frequency
%
Number of Years of High School Equivalent Education
Total
One
15
13.3
Two
24
21.2
Three
43
38.1
Four
19
16.8
Did not respond
12
10.6
113
100
When reviewing marital status, it was found that 20 inmates were married. There
were 78 single inmates. There were nine divorced inmates. Lastly, six inmates declined
to answer. Please refer to Table 5 for frequency and respective percentiles.
67
Table 5
Demographic information by Marital Status
Variable
Marital Status
Total
Frequency
%
Married
20
17.7
Single
78
69.0
Divorced
9
8.0
Did not respond
6
5.3
113
100
68
Factor Analysis
The data for this study was collected from 113 inmates held in the custody of the
Davidson County Sheriff’s Office (DCSO), in Nashville, Tennessee. A factor analysis
was conducted on the inmate data, for the purposes of validating the survey instrument
for data collection in this study. The factor analysis was conducted to confirm that the
survey instrument developed and pilot tested at DCSO, met an acceptable standard of
reliability to be relied upon in this study. A panel of experts was formed by the
researcher. These experts edited the survey and made suggestions for the validity and
content.
Three types of analyses were performed on the data to ensure consistency among
hypotheses and results. The first step taken was to compare those who participated in
GED programming against those who did not participate by performing a bivariate Chi
Square category analysis among the categories of previous school experience, self
concept and efficacy, home/family influence, peer influence, facility influence, and post
release expectation of a GED. This chi square was performed to identify whether
observed values differed significantly from expected values.
The responses to individual questions were rated as a positive or negative
corresponding with the Likert scale in the reverse as questions were asked in the
negative. For example, a survey question stated as “I don’t enjoy studying” on our
established Likert scale of 1=strongly agree to 5= strongly disagree, would mean that
answers greater than 3 do enjoy studying (positive+). Answers less than three do not
enjoy studying (negative-). Answers were then compared between groups of inmates.
69
The second step taken was to perform a logistic linear multiple regression analysis
at the individual question level within each category to identify individual questions
which presented statistically significant differences between those who chose to
participate and those who chose not to participate while incarcerated.
The third step taken was to perform a logistic linear multiple regression of sub
categories labeled as “demographics”, when considering age, gender, marital status,
sentence length, life satisfaction, number of full years of high school. Comparing these
demographics allows for this study to make generalizations about inmates in DCSO
custody, based merely on current intake protocol questions. By knowing this
demographic information in any combination, an educational administrator will have a
general direction of advisement to offer a potential student.
Taking into account all approaches to the data analysis, conducting a logistic
linear multiple regression analysis model shows that there is a method to predict behavior
when rating responses by a positive or negative result of calculation. If an overall answer
is positive, we can predict by percentage how much more likely an inmate is to
participate in a GED program while incarcerated. If an overall answer is negative, we
can predict by percentage how less likely an inmate is to participate in a GED program
while incarcerated.
70
Null Hypotheses 1
HO: 1 There is no statistically significant difference between eligible inmates who
chose to participate and those who did not participate in GED programming when
considering pre- incarceration educational.
At the category level, a bivariate analysis using Chi Square analysis was
performed. It was discovered that there was no statistically significant difference at the
.10 level of significance, between those inmate populations who participated versus those
who did not participate in GED programs. The results are illustrated in the following
table.
Table 6
Category Level Chi Square Tests for Research Hypothesis 1
Value
df
Asymp. Sig (2 sided)
Pearson Chi-Square
21.616a
22
.483
Likelihood Ratio
26.361
22
.237
Linear by Linear Assoc.
.055
1
.814
N of Valid Cases
113
At the question analysis level, a logistic linear multiple regression test was
performed. Question Qb1_R1 (Past educational experiences have been unfavorable) was
found to be at a level of .051 level of significance, that there was a statistically
significant difference between those inmates that participated in a GED program while
incarcerated versus those who chose not to participate, when considering this question at
the .10 level of statistical significance. There is a difference which illustrates that an
overall negative school experience was had by those who chose not to participate in GED
71
programming while incarcerated. Conversely, those who had a positive previous school
experience were twice as likely to enroll in a GED program while incarcerated. The null
hypothesis 1 was rejected by the data.
Table 7
Question Level Test for Research Hypothesis 1
Question
B
S.E.
Wald
df
Sig.
Exp(B)
Qb1_R1
.824
.422
3.813
1
.051
2.280
Qc1_R1
.215
.298
.521
1
.470
1.240
Qc3_R1
-.331 .309
1.150
1
.284
.718
Null Hypothesis 2
HO: 2 There is no statistically significant difference between eligible inmates who
chose to participate and those who did not participate in GED programming when
considering self-concept and efficacy.
At the category level, a bivariate analysis using a chi square analysis was
performed. It was discovered that there was no statistically significant difference, at the
.10 level of significance, between those inmates who participate versus those who do not
participate in GED programs when considering self concept and efficacy. The results are
illustrated in the following table.
72
Table 8
Category Level Chi-Square Test for Research Hypothesis 2
Value
df
Asymp. Sig (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square
22.301a
24
.561
Likelihood Ratio
25.636
24
.372
Linear by Linear Assoc.
.529
1
.467
N of Valid Cases
100
A logistic linear multiple regression test was conducted to determine at the .10
level of significance, as to whether a statistically significant difference existed between
eligible inmates who chose to participate and those who are eligible, but did not
participate in GED programming when considering an inmate’s self concept and efficacy.
At the question level, it was found in question Qb2_R2 (I felt that I could not compete
academically) at a level of .067 level of significance, that there was a statistically
significant difference between those inmates that participated in a GED program while
incarcerated and those that did not. It was also found in Question Qh6_R2 (Because I
didn’t think the course would meet my needs) at a level of .096 of significance, that there
was a statistically significant difference between those inmates that participated in a GED
program while incarcerated and those that did not.
There is a difference which illustrates that a negative self-concept and efficacy
experience was possessed more often by those who chose not to participate in GED
73
programming while incarcerated. Conversely, those who had a more positive selfconcept and efficacy experience were more likely to enroll in a GED program while
incarcerated. The null hypothesis 2 was rejected. The results are illustrated in the table
below.
Table 9
Question Level Test for Research Hypothesis 2
Question
Qb2_R2
B
-.603
S.E.
.329
Wald
3.354
df
1
Sig.
.067
Exp (B)
.547
Qe2_R2
-.027
.321
.007
1
.934
.974
Qh6_R2
.712
.428
2.769
1
.096
2.038
Qd7_R2
-.405
.326
1.542
1
.214
.667
Null Hypothesis 3
HO: 3 There is no statistically significant difference between eligible inmates who
chose to participate and those who did not participate in GED programming when
considering family/home environment.
At the category level, a bivariate analysis using Chi Square analysis was
performed. It was discovered that there was no statistically significant difference at the
.10 level of significance, between those inmates who participate versus those who do not
participate in GED programs when considering family/home environment. The results
are illustrated in the following table.
74
Table 10
Category Level Chi Square Test for Research Hypothesis 3
Pearson Chi Square
Value
25.892a
df
26
Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
.469
Likelihood Ratio
32.246
26
.185
Linear by Linear Assoc.
.174
1
.677
N of Valid Cases
106
Performing a logistic multiple regression at the question level for this section
of family/home environment, it was revealed that there was one individual question
which yielded a result of significant difference on a .10 level of significance. Question
Qb4_R3 (Because my family does not currently encourage participation in a GED
program) yielded a statistically significant difference of .084 between those that chose
to participate in GED programming when incarcerated versus those that chose not to
participate. The null hypothesis 3 was rejected. The results are illustrated in the
following table.
Table 11
Question Level Test for Research Hypothesis 3
Question
Qf3_R3
B
.253
S.E.
.263
Wald
.925
df
1
Sig.
.336
Exp(B)
1.287
Qb4_R3
.844
.489
2.976
1
.084
2.325
Qc4_R3
-.151
.528
.082
1
.775
.860
Qd4_R3
.099
.530
.035
1
.852
1.104
Qe4_R3
-.187
.399
.219
1
.639
.829
75
Null Hypothesis 4
HO:4 There is no statistically significant difference between eligible inmates who chose
to participate and those who did not participate in GED programming when considering
peer influence.
At the category level, a bivariate analysis using Chi Square analysis was
performed. It was discovered that there was not a statistically significant difference
between those inmates who participate versus those who did not participate in GED
programs at the .10 level of significance, when considering peer influence. The results
are illustrated in the following table.
Table 12
Category Level Chi Square Test for Hypothesis 4
Pearson Chi Square
Value
36.364a
df
29
Asymp. Sig. (2 sided)
.163
Likelihood Ratio
42.939
29
.046
Linear by Linear Assoc.
.009
1
.926
N of Valid Cases
103
At the question level, logistic multiple regression analysis was performed for peer
influence, results revealed that there were no individual questions which yielded a
statistically significant difference at the .10 level of significance, between those inmates
that chose to participate in GED programming when incarcerated versus those that chose
not to participate. The null hypothesis 4 was accepted. The results are illustrated in the
following table.
76
Table 13
Question Level Test for Research Hypothesis 4
Question
Qb5_R4
B
.090
S.E.
.311
Wald
.083
df
1
Sig.
.773
Exp(B)
1.094
Qg5_R4
-.575
.394
2.131
1
.144
.563
Null Hypothesis 5
HO: 5 There is no statistically significant difference between eligible inmates who
chose to participate and those who did not participate in GED programming when
considering jail/facility environment influence.
At the category level, a bivariate analysis using Chi Square analysis was
performed. It was discovered that there was no statistically significant difference
between those inmates who participate versus those who do not participate in GED
programs at the .10 level of significance, when considering facility nvironment influence.
The results are illustrated in the following table.
Table 14
Category Level Chi Square Test for Research Hypothesis 5
Pearson Chi Square
Value
22.301a
df
24
Asymp. Sig. (2 sided)
.561
Likelihood Ratio
25.636
24
.372
Linear by Linear Assoc.
.529
1
.467
N of Valid Cases
100
77
At the question level, a linear logistic multiple regression test was conducted to
determine at the .10 level of significance, to determine whether a statistically significant
difference existed between an inmate’s facility environment experience and their decision
to participate in a GED program while incarcerated.
It was found that there were no specific questions which yielded any significant
differences between those inmates that participated in a GED program while incarcerated
and those that did not participate when considering jail/facility environment. The null
hypothesis 5 was accepted. The results are illustrated in the following table.
Table 15
Question Level Test for Research Hypothesis 5
Question
Qb5_R5
B
.090
S.E.
.311
Wald
.083
df
1
Sig.
.773
Exp(B)
1.094
Qg5_R5
-.575
.394
2.131
1
.144
.563
Qb6_R5
.018
.425
.002
1
.966
1.018
Null Hypothesis 6
HO: 6 There is no statistically significant difference between eligible inmates who
chose to participate and those who did not participate in GED programming when
considering perceived post release value of a GED.
At the category level, a bivariate analysis using chi square analysis was
performed. It was discovered that there was no statistically significant difference
between those inmates who participate versus those who do not participate in GED
78
programs at the .10 level of significance, when considering perceived post release value
of a GED. The results are illustrated in the following table.
Table 16
Category Level Chi Square Test for Research Hypothesis 6
Value
df
a
Pearson Chi Square
22.626
20
Asymp. Sig. (2 sided)
.308
Likelihood Ratio
Linear by Linear Assoc.
N of Valid Cases
26.197
20
.159
1.184
1
.277
99
At the question level, a logistic multiple regression test was conducted to
determine at the .10 level of significance, to determine whether a statistically significant
difference existed between an inmate’s perceived post release value and their decision to
participate in a GED program while incarcerated.
It was found that there were no specific questions which yielded any significant
differences between those inmates that participated in a GED program while incarcerated
and those that did not participate when considering perceived post release value of a
GED. The null hypothesis 6 was accepted. The results are illustrated in the following
table.
Table 17
Question Level Test for Research Hypothesis 6
Question
Qc7_R6
B
-.217
S.E.
.326
Wald.
.443
df
1
Sig.
.506
Exp(B)
.805
Qd7_R6
-.405
.326
1.542
1
.214
.667
79
Null Hypothesis 7
HO: 7 There is no statistically significant difference between eligible inmates who
chose to participate and those who did not participate in GED programming when
considering age, gender, marital status, school equivalency, sentence length, location of
residence, and life satisfaction.
A linear logistic multiple regression analysis was conducted to determine at the
.10 level of significance, to determine whether a statistically significant difference existed
when considering an inmate’s age, gender, marital status, school equivalency, sentence
length, location of residence, and life satisfaction. It was found there were statistically
significant differences between those inmates that participated in a GED program while
incarcerated and those that did not participate when considering an inmate’s gender and
high school equivalency. The null hypothesis 7 was rejected. The results are illustrated
in the table below.
Table 18
Demographic Result Readings
Category
Gender
B
-2.121
S.E.
.742
Wald
8.171
df
1
Sig.
.004
Exp(B)
.120
Age
-.506
.561
.813
1
.367
.603
Current Sent. Length
1.364
.980
1.938
1
.164
3.911
Location
.053
.673
.006
1
.937
1.055
Marital Status
.878
.774
1.284
1
.257
2.405
H.S. Equiv. Years
-.640
.328
3.816
1
.051
.527
Life Satisfaction
-.124
.263
.224
1
.636
.883
80
With respect to gender, it was determined at a .004 level of significance; that there
is a significant difference between those who chose to participate and those who did not.
Females were 88% more likely to participate in GED programming while incarcerated
than males. It was also determined that the category of high school equivalency, at a .051
level of significance, illustrated a difference between those who chose to participate and
those who did not. Those who participated were 48% more likely to do as compared to
those who did not participate.
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION
The purpose of this study was to compare the differences between inmates that
participated in a GED program while incarcerated versus those that did not. This study
sought to view the relevant categories of pre-incarceration educational experience, self
concept and efficacy, home/family environment, facility environment, peer influence, and
perceived post release value of a GED. The study sought to find if there were significant
differences between the two populations when considering the aforementioned categories
as barriers or catalysts.
This study was important to complete when taking into account the large number
of local high school dropout students. More importantly, it was vital that this study was
completed within a population that has a great opportunity to gain needed education in a
relatively short period of time. Educational administrators cannot neglect those lowest on
the priority rung. Inmates are not seen as a priority when it comes to education. It is
important for educational administrators to identify the procedural weak links involved in
cursory education within public structures. Appropriate actions can be taken by
educational administrators to encourage participation in GED programs.
Findings and Interpretations
Looking at the data collected for this study, it is illustrated that 80% of the
participants dropped out of high school with three years or less of classes to complete. It
was also illustrated that of the participants surveyed, 46.4% were in the 18-30 age group.
82
In addition, 40% were between the ages of 31-45. This equals a cumulative of 86.4% of
participants who were below the age of 45 with less than three years of work to gain a
high school diploma. Inmates may have better success with high school level degree
completion if credit recovery is an option. It would be easier to earn a high school
diploma through credit recovery versus starting the GED program from inception.
Research hypothesis one states that there are no statistically significant
differences between participants and non participants when considering pre-incarceration
educational experience. However, it was found that inmates with a positive previousschool experience were more likely to enroll when incarcerated. The data shows that this
finding is consistent with previous research and literature. Campbell (2004) states that a
student’s first school experiences can shape the rest of their life. Once it is understood
that school is a tool for learning and socialization, all stakeholders become involved to
increase participation and success. The literature also shows that the earlier a child is
failed by this country’s educational system, the more likely they are to see school as
irrelevant to the way their family lives life (Western et al., 2006). This research allows
educational administrators to identify the most likely trajectory of an inmates’
educational horizon based upon their previous school experience. This is important to
establish because of the finite time frames in which that prisoners are eligible as well as
available for an educational improvement.
Research hypothesis two states that there are no statistically significant
differences between participants and non participants when considering self-concept and
efficacy. It was found that those who had a higher self esteem and efficacy were more
83
likely to participate when incarcerated. The literature shows that once an inmate has self
worth and self-esteem, they are more likely to take responsibility for their future
(Bushfield, 2004). This will aid educational administrators with respect to identifying
and working with inmates who need special attention. Placing an emphasis on building
internal efficacy allows inmates to become independent. Practicing self-esteem
improvement techniques allows educational administrators to build future leaders and
successful educational programs. It is important to build the consciousness of inmates so
that they believe education is imperative to future success in life.
Research hypothesis three states that there are no statistically significant
differences between participants and non participants when considering family
environment support systems. It was found that there was a statistically significant
difference between populations in this study. This is unique in that the literature shows
that family is important in the general population when discussing reasons for starting
and continuing education (Sanchez, 2004). Rose and Voss (2003) illustrate the great
importance of family to an inmate’s post release. This family should consist of members
who are a part of a “moral community” and should consist of classmates and or
instructors who can encourage inmates to lead an improved way of life (Rose et al. 2003).
The statistical difference shown in this research is critical because it illustrates that an
inmate does not have to be committed to the traditional “family” if it is indeed a negative
influence. This research also shows that family support before, during, and after
incarceration influences GED program participation. It is important to recognize that
educational administrators have the opportunity to place themselves before inmates
84
when they may be vulnerable and open to new directions. At this point, charge can be
taken by the administrator to influence the inmates’ to participate in educational
activities.
Research hypothesis four states that there are no statistically significant
differences between participants and non participants when considering peer influences.
It was discovered that there were no differences found between those inmates who
participated in the GED program and those who did not, when considering peer support.
This differs from the literature which indicates that peer support is a major contributing
factor when considering inmate education. However, the research indicates that
education is not limited to the classroom. Most inmate education takes place in the
annals of the facility. Cuthbertson (2004) states that terrorists, gangs, and other centers
of negative influence constantly influence inmates to perform regressively. Kjelsberg et
al. (2008) further indicate that inmates listen and learn from those in their same
socioeconomic condition ( i.e. family and peer alike). This finding is needed in order to
further explain and assist educational administrators in creating positive influences and
environments. It is also important to try to limit the negative influences in an inmates’
life, especially when attempting to correct and rehabilitate.
Research hypothesis five states that there are no statistically significant
differences between participants and non participants when considering jail facility
environment. It was found that there were no statistically differences between inmates
that participated in a GED program and those that did not. This would be consistent with
the research that classroom facilities and programs are offered to all eligible inmates.
85
The literature emphasizes that the lack of facility accommodation and poor design of
programs which leads to inmate disparities, is the most measureable variable when
comparing program participants to non-participants (Case et al., 2004). It is important for
facilities to maintain high quality and availability of programs. The facility
accommodations should never be the deciding factor when a student considers
educational options.
Research hypothesis six states that there are no statistically significant differences
between participants and non participants when considering perceived post release value
of a GED. It was found there were no significant differences. This finding was not
consistent with the research. It was found in (Pavis, 2002), that the post- release value of
a GED has a greater impact on an inmate’s motivation to complete a GED while
incarcerated. Fabelo (2002) further purports that views of limited opportunity upon
release had a negative impact upon an inmate participating in a GED program while
incarcerated. Purposely set barriers such as background checks, public assistance, and
welfare benefits are unattainable when a criminal record exists no matter the level of
education.
Research hypothesis seven states that there are no statistically significant
differences between participants and non participants when considering demographics
such as age, gender, marital status, school equivalency, sentence length, location of
residence, and life satisfaction. It was revealed that there were statistically significant
differences when considering gender and number of high school years completed before
86
incarceration. This research revealed that women were 88% more likely to participate in
GED programming while incarcerated. This finding was more aggressive than
anticipated. It should also be noted that women were more likely than men to complete
the survey. Higher participation rates among incarcerated women are consistent with
numbers in the general population. Women typically return to school sooner than men in
the general population (Western, 2006).
When reviewing the entire population of this research through the linear logistic
multiple regression analysis, the rate for those who were eligible non participants was
48% less than those who were eligible and participating when considering high school
equivalency. The data for this study illustrated that for every eligible and participating
inmate, there was an average of two inmates who were eligible and not participating.
This finding supports the literature in that a two to one ratio with relation to participation
in GED classes is within the realm of the national level of 30 percent. (Crayton et
al., 2008). This is important to educational administrators because these low numbers
represent a long standing benchmark which needs to be improved upon.
Implications for Practice
The true reason for conducting this academic exercise is to attempt to influence
change that can be applied within an actual system. If the jail facility and the educational
administrator cannot influence inmate non-participants to take advantage of the
educational programs while incarcerated, recidivism will remain high. More troubling is
the fact that over the next 10 years if this problem is not addressed, society will have an
87
even larger population of inmates with the same caustic issues that plague it now. Should
this population continue to compound at a rate of 224,000 per year (as indicated by the
US Census, 2006), there will be a minimum of 10 million people under correctional
supervision by the year 2021.
As discussed in the literature review, the US Department of Justice reports that
there are over 1.6 million children in this country with an incarcerated parent. By having
an inmate parent, these children are 70% more likely to become inmates themselves. It is
not difficult to extrapolate the possibilities of how this already serious problem can
develop even further. Education of inmates leads to an employable workforce. Further
neglect of this needy population will result in a fiscal liability instead of converting
inmates into respected citizens through education. Stakeholders should consider the
results and recommendations of this study to combat the threat of increased
complications.
Recommendations for Educational Administrators
Educational administrators must create a system which does not allow dropping
out of school to be so easily achieved and accepted. The use of new teaching methods in
conjunction with the use of technology can eliminate the need to go to a traditional brick
and mortar school for expected learning outcomes. Educational administrators must also
consider teaching a more comprehensive curriculum. When curriculum is being
developed for this new generation of inmates, it should include life skills and more
holistic approaches. Educational plans should be supportive of students with little family
help and support. Troubled students are more often than not, missing a proper role model
88
component. Skills must be taught to circumvent the inevitable problem of behavior
management issues. High student self- esteem is a needed component to furthering
education among all students. Inmates not enrolled in GED programming as compared to
those enrolled, indicated with a statistically significant difference that self concept and
efficacy were not favorable to them. The data shows that those inmates, who did not
participate in GED programming while incarcerated, felt that they could not compete
academically. As such, educational administrators will have to go the extra mile, to make
the necessary corrections inside the classroom to make students feel that they are
important and that their goals are attainable in the classroom.
Jail educational administrators would be remiss not to implement practice which
thoroughly assesses those inmates found to be at the high school level, within the two to
three year window of completion discussed in this research. These inmates should be
placed into a category of “urgent need for services”. This would place focus on the short,
intense, focused effort needed to complete an approved educational program. Education
increases the choices that one has in life. Limited choices equates to limited
opportunities, which leads to higher probability of incarceration. Inmates not enrolled in
GED programming indicated with a statistically significant difference that past
educational experiences were not favorable for them. This sentiment demonstrates the
need for educational administrators to initiate contact with inmates with respect to
education. Rather than an inmate having to approach facility staff to enroll in a GED
program, it should be facility mandated that eligible inmates be enrolled in programming.
89
This is an understandingly difficult objective to achieve when considering the high
volumes of inmates that rotate between facilities. Once incarcerated, the program
integration protocol should be reviewed and applied to an inmate immediately. Once
newer inmates are bedded, they need to be kept on alert by facility with respect to
educational expectations. This is especially true when managing the younger inmates
who are not yet used to the system. This may be one of the last chances available for
society to help turn a negative action into something that may yield a positive result.
Recommendations for Legislative Change
Politicians should enact legislation implementing a model of “educational rehab”.
This “rehab” would force those inmates who are within near reach of high school
equivalency graduation to complete their respective programs as part of their sentencing.
Just as so many celebrities must complete drug rehab as part of their sentencing
guidelines, merely sending someone to a cell yields no benefit to any community other
than those facilities that operate for profit. This research recognized and illustrated that
roughly 80% of participants were within two to three years of high school equivalency
completion.
Politicians have the responsibility to their constituency to uphold the public good
and order. It can be said that educating inmates in order to reduce crime and recidivism
lends itself to this mission. Over the next 10 years we could see a decrease in crime and
an increase in the necessary workforce and tax base to better support our communities
and cursory schools. Politicians should also review current laws which restrict access to
benefits and assistance for those returning home from jail/prison. It was mentioned it the
90
literature review (Kjelsberg & Friestad, 2008) that the denial of public services for
convicted criminal leads to recidivism as well. Politicians should also seek to distribute
local municipal tax credits to those who hire released inmate populations. Rather than
monies being spent on incarceration, divesting public funds for the good of the public tax
base, will yield the return of capital within the same neighborhoods where inmate
reintegration is to take place. The same dollar spent within the business community
instead of the corrections community, creates and builds opportunity exponentially for
taxing authorities, the post- release inmate, their families, and entrepreneurs alike.
Recommendations for Correctional Facilities
Correctional facilities must understand that as a public service, it is of a greater
benefit to educate inmates. When reviewing the for profit model, it is counter- productive
for publicly traded prison owner/operators to eliminate their customer base. While a
privately owned prison facility may be earning money by the day per inmate, they do not
want to eliminate the population which allows them to prosper. Instead of sending minor
offenders to jail and expending taxpayer dollars with no foreseeable return on expense,
courts should send these uneducated offenders to school and receive a foreseeable return
on public monies being spent. School is detested and feared as an obstacle more so than
jail to a great majority of these local county inmates.
In conjunction with the judicial system, I recommend for those eligible inmates,
that education should be considered a pre- release condition for those housed longer than
91
90 days. If this is not possible, inmates should remain on probation until the minimum
education requirement is met. This would create urgency and give financial incentive for
inmates to complete school or violate probation/parole. It is well known that jail protocol
demands safety, security, and speed of processing inmates as the highest priorities. As an
inmate goes through intake, it should be noted to any and all educational staff that new
eligible participants are coming to the facility. As it takes roughly 90 days to complete
the GED program, it is recommended for practice that an IEP (Individual Education Plan)
be made available for each inmate participant. An eligible inmate should be provided
with a written blueprint, indicating proper course of actions which would be needed to
complete their education.
This study illustrated that inmates not enrolled in GED programming as compared
to those enrolled, indicated with a statistically significant difference that a family/home
influence were not favorable to them with respect to enrolling in a GED program.
Inmates in this research indicated that their families were not encouraging them to
participate in a GED program. Inmates should be housed as an educational cohort in
order to mimic family environment. Again, if family and peer support are factors that
prohibit inmates from participating in GED programming, then these factors can be
manipulated and controlled for desired outcomes. These cohorts can influence the
participation of an inmate just as family would in the external general population. This
would be supported by the findings of this research in that family influence is a major
contributor to the success in soliciting participation in GED programming.
92
This milieu can be created over time. A “moral community” can be manufactured
through cohort programming. Residence pods and planning schedules would increase the
longitudinal participation of inmates. Individuals are not singled out, but carried along
with the nucleus of the group. It should cost an institution no additional money to house
this way rather than current protocol. This would also mimic alcohol and drug abuse pod
living arrangements already being supported in jails and prisons.
Building educational cohorts within jails allows the creation of a culture and
climate that reinforces positive behavior based upon the success experienced by the
group. Administrators focus on building cohorts with both strong and the weak, leaders
and followers alike. Leaders learn how to empathize with subordinates and subordinates
learn by example how to lead. With the proper educational administrators, this
programming and success can be replicated across programs and facilities.
Allow inmates to continue their education plans post-release with the least
amount of restriction possible. Many inmates claim that they are not aware of the
possibilities of post release continuation of GED programming. These possibilities
should be promoted before release. Education is often viewed as secondary an item of
importance by inmates and staff alike. Participation is most often left to the inmate as
optional. It would be unconscionable not to provide an alcohol or drug abuse population
with post release assistance and after care. It should not be acceptable to neglect those
inmates needing education.
Utilizing student teachers to illustrate programming options would take stress off
of jail administrators as well. Allow the inmates to sell their success stories. When
93
creating a zone of proximal development among inmates, we find that information flow
increases. Inmate teachers also illustrate that leadership opportunities exist through
education. Illustrating a management structure and or hierarchy would mimic the
neighborhood culture present on the street.
Technology should be utilized at every opportunity to help bridge the curriculum
availability gaps. A utopian investment in an infrastructure upgrade on a national level
would deliver proof to inmates that education is important to the administration. Using
secure computers inside of educational cohorts or pods will allow possible 24/7 learning.
There is a myriad of fresh & free educational content available which can be
disseminated through incarcerated populations. New approaches to curriculum
dispersion can overcome budgetary limitations. A world of knowledge is accessible
through the power of a computer and a modem.
Lastly, those with lower than high school education levels, should be vigorously
persuaded by the rule of jail facility to participate in some type of facility sponsored
program. Should an academic assessment reveal that a GED is not yet realistically
attainable for an inmate; the facility should still capitalize on the opportunity for progress
by way of vocational study or on the job training. Correctional leaders should take a
stand that education is just as important as going to work.
Inmates are not as mentally incapacitated as they are seemingly apathetic.
Inmates crave the exterior world when locked up. Education should be fed to inmates
with this craving in mind. Conversely, facilities should focus especially on inmates with
the demonstrated ability and motivation for self improvement. Making the coursework
94
relevant and immediately usable to inmates would yield a correlation that education is
important and pertinent to their present and future lifestyle. If it is to remain an inmates’
choice whether or not they participate, the numbers will continually be low. Inmates tend
to get into their routine while in the facilities and it is difficult for these routines to be
broken. There were far too many inmates present during the garnering of surveys for this
research, involved in absolutely nothing productive.
Recommendations for Community Change
Communities and civic organizations need to become more involved in
community schools. Teaching a child that they can still be successful, if their parents
aren’t together anymore, will yield positive benefits to the self-esteem of students. As
this research shows, low self-esteem will cause a student to withdraw and not
participate in available programming. Community leaders should also become more
involved in the reintegration of inmates to their respective neighborhoods. Creating a
pathway back into a legal living arrangement creates a less stressful environment for a
returning resident. Community leaders should also enlist and encourage stronger
partnerships with local businesses, law enforcement, and chambers of commerce. This
would encourage employers to increase the hiring of those with criminal records. As
identified earlier in this study, one in every thirty one people in this county has been
involved in the legal system at some in their life. With respect to lesser crimes and
inmates in DCSO custody relevant to this study, increased education or employability
could have definitely reduced the need for incarceration.
95
The public employer could, with the proper municipal relationship, bear minimal
risk by employing past offenders. Many inmates were in custody for child support issues,
drivers license expiration, and other non violent crimes. Local colleges and universities
should consider a dual enrollment program which would benefit inmate students while
also giving direction to post- release activities. Exposing inmates to college would also
include inmates already graduated from high school.
Utilizing state funds for education rather than housing overhead would be more
palatable to taxpayers as an investment in social contract theory. Technology centers and
trade colleges are abound in the Nashville community. DCSO does currently utilize
career development track coordinators. These coordinators are a key piece to successful
inmate transition back into society. Creating more opportunities for inmates leads to an
increased chance of successful reintegration post-release.
Recommendations for Future Research
In this section there are five recommendations for future research. First, future
researchers should seek a larger sample size. In order to extrapolate findings across a
large population of two million plus inmates, a study with a national reach or influence
would lay a greater foundation for building a body of knowledge. It is important to gain
an understanding of the entire U.S. inmate population. It is widely accepted that rates of
recidivism are high across the national population. Jail administrators are in the business
of housing inmates and are not necessarily prioritizing education. Knowing inmate needs
and jail administrator capabilities would allow senior administrators to play to their
96
strengths when allocating budgets for programming. It would take a state or federal
facility to implement this recommendation as they hold the larger populations.
The second recommendation for future research would take into consideration the
fact that the inmate population on the county level can transition every 30-45 days.
Inmates are in a constant custody rotation. A more longitudinal study should be
considered in order to create a baseline of services offered. Over time, best practices can
be formed to maximize program offerings and results.
The third recommendation should be to conduct future research which compares
differences between jail populations and prison populations. Prison inmates know when
they are to be released almost to the date. Jail inmates can be incarcerated sometimes
indefinitely, until they run the course of the judicial process and are sentenced. This
uncertainty was mentioned by jail inmates as one issue which creates hesitancy in
enrolling in GED programming. Inmates may feel pressured with respect to not having
enough time to finish a GED program. There were numerous participants in this study
that expressed concern within their surveys that sentence length might conflict with their
educational plans.
The fourth recommendation for future research would be to juxtapose the
quantitative data of this research with an addition qualitative study. This would be
important in order to review all responses towards the overall experience of inmates. For
this research, the inmates could only answer what was being asked on the survey tool
used. There are many other possible reasons outside of the six that were explored in this
97
research, which could contribute greatly to the explanation of low inmate participation
numbers in GED programming.
The fifth and final recommendation for future research would be to view and
survey higher security facilities. This study had only the resources of minimum security
facilities. Is there a more specific or diffuse relationship between severity of crime
committed and educational experience? Does the level of infraction infer level of
competence to complete GED programming in the eligible population?
It would benefit the entire body of knowledge to increase recorded inmate
feedback and data within this population. As it is growing exponentially, it is imperative
that we engineer valid solutions to increasing low education as quickly as possible. It
would also benefit the body of knowledge to address the impediments to continued
education for all drop outs. It is evident by referring to USDOJ (2009) figures that going
to jail is inevitable for an under educated population. Undertaking new prime studies and
practices should be aggressively continued to understand this population.
Conclusion
In retrospect, it is evident as to why there are very few studies within this specific
population of the student- inmate. The level of difficulty in obtaining inmate
participation is high. The probability of finding a correctional administration that will
allow such internal prodding creates an even higher level of difficulty. Navigating these
barriers leaves ample room for researchers to find more convenient topics. The few
research projects found for the purposes of this researchers literature review were limited
98
to small sample sizes. Many other studies focused on the drop-out rates and problems in
the general populations.
Many generalizations and theories have been reviewed as to why people in the
general population don’t complete their cursory education. To the contrary, limited
information has been sought to explain why inmates with ample time on their hands, have
no motivation to increase their education. Inmates are very motivated. Unfortunately, in
many cases this motivation is misguided.
It is the three pronged responsibility of this country’s primary educational
systems, correctional systems, and familial systems to re-direct and motivate inmates to
K-12 completion. When one of these systems breaks down, the other two are ultimately
responsible for correcting the problem or allowing it to multiply. This research illustrates
that almost half (47.5%) of those surveyed were between the ages of 18-30. This age
group consists of relatively young learners with long employment time horizons. It is
important to redirect our resources towards helping successful reintegration of inmates
back into their respective communities. This effort begins with education. Some would
argue that it is necessary that we are tough on those who commit crimes. It is accepted
that they must pay their debt to society. Drop-out inmates can better serve themselves
and repay society by participating in educational programs while incarcerated.
Adult men and women either have to admit that they need education to live or
accept being relegated to their chosen fate. Once this choice is made, it is an inmates’ to
own. Plato wrote in “The Republic”, that there were three types of classes upon which
society prospers; leaders, soldiers, and workers. Fortunately in this country we can
99
choose which we become. Yet make no mistake about it that education is the key that
opens the doors to ascension.
Relying upon data based conclusions of this study; it is important to nurture the
idea within inmate populations that education can change your life for the better.
Educational administrators have to illustrate that without an education, opportunities in
life are extremely limited. Inmates that decide to enroll in GED programming should be
shown that upon completion, their lives and that of their families, has a great deal to gain
with increased post-release opportunity. Any combination of increased education
leading to employment has to be better than the alternative of returning to jail.
100
REFERENCES
Bohlman, L. & Deal, T. (1994). Becoming a teacher leader: From isolation to
collaboration. Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press.
Boutellier, J.C.J. (1998). Reintegration of ex-offenders. European Journal on Crime,
Policy, and Research, 6(2), 167-277.
Bourgois, P. (1995). In Search of Respect: Selling crack in El Barrio. Cambridge, MA:
University Press.
Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2004). Prisoners in state and federal institutions on
December 31, annual, & correctional populations in the United States. United
States Census Bureau. Retrieved March 2, 2010 from
http://www.census.gov/statab/hist/02hs0024.xls
Bushfield, S. (2004). Fathers in prison: Impact of parenting education. Journal of
Correctional Education 55(2), 104-116.
Brown, B. (2008). From cellblocks to classrooms: Reforming inmate education to
improve public safety. Legislative Analyst’s Office, California’s Nonpartisan
Fiscal and Policy Advisor. Retrieved March 3, 2010, from http://www.lao.ca.gov/
2008/crim/inmate_education/inmate_education_021208.apx
Cabrera, A. (1993). College persistence: A structural equations modeling test of an
integrated model of student retention. Journal of Higher Education, 123-139.
Campbell, D. (2004). Choosing democracy; A practical guide to multicultural education.
(3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.
101
Case, P. & Fasenfest, D. (2004). The relationship of race and criminal behavior:
Challenging cultural explanations for a structural problem. Critical Sociology,
34(2), 213-238. Retrieved April 21, 2010 from
http://www.sagepub.com/gabbidonstudy/articles/Case.pdf
Coley, R.J. & Barton, P.E. (2006). Locked up and locked out: An educational
perspective on the US prison population. Educational Testing Service. Retrieved
January 30, 2009 from http://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/PIC
LOCKEDUP.pdf
Cuthbertson, I.M. (2004). Prisons and the education of terrorists. World Policy Journal,
21(3), 15-22.
Crayton, A. & Neusteter, S.R. (2008). The current state of correctional education. Paper
to be presented at the Reentry Roundtable on Education. Prisoner Reentry
Institute, John Jay College of Criminal Justice. Retrieved February 10, 2010 from
http://www.jjay.cuny.edu/centersinstitutes/pri/pdfs/CraytonNeusteter_FinalPaper
pdf
Darkenwald, G. (1985). Participation in Adult Education. Adult Education
Quarterly,35(4), 177-193.
Davidson County Sheriff’s Office (2009). 287 (g) two-year review. Retrieved March 21,
2010 from http://www.nashville-sheriff.net/pdf/287greview.pdf
Davidson County Sheriff’s Office (2010). Inmate Programs. Retrieved February 16,
2009 from http://www.nashville-sheriff.net/inmateprograms.asp
Delacruz, E.M. (2005). Art education in civil society. Visual Arts Research, 31(2), 3-9.
102
Denny, A.H. (1992). Access to literacy programs, perspectives on African american
Adults. Theory into Practice, 31(2), 337-341.
Dinsmore, J. & Wenger, K. (2006). Relationships in pre-service teacher preparation:
From cohorts to communities. Teacher Education Quarterly, 33(1), 57-74.
Edwards, C.H. (2000). Moral classroom communities and the development of resiliency.
Contemporary Education, 71(4), 38-41.
Ellsworth, H., Peterson, M., Welborn R. & Frost, C. (1991). Typology of factors that lead
deter participation with an education institution. Journal of Adult Education,
20(1), 15-27.
Fabelo, T. (2002). The Impact of prison education on community reintegration of
inmates: The texas case. The Journal of Correctional Education, 53(3), 106-110.
Freudenberg, N. (2006, June). Coming home from jail: A review of health and social
problems facing US jail populations and of opportunities for reentry interventions.
The Urban Institute. Washington D.C. Retrieved January 30, 2010 from
http://www.urban.org/projects/reentry-roundtable/upload/inmate_challenges.pdf
Glaze, L.E. & Maruschak, L.E. (2008). Parents in prison and their minor children. United
States Department of Justice. Retrieved March 30, 2010 from
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/pptmc.pdf
Goto, S.T. & Martin, C. (2009). Psychology of success: Overcoming barriers to pursuing
further education. Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 57(1), 10-21.
103
Greenberg, E., Dunleavy, E. & Kutner, M. (2007). Literacy behind bars results from
the 2003 national assessment of adult literacy prison survey. United States
Department of Education. Retrieved March 2, 2010 from
http://www.nces.ed.gov/pubs2007/2007473.pdf
Hagan, J. (1993). The social embeddedness of crime and unemployment. Criminology,
31(4), 465-491.
Haigler, K.O., Harlow, C., O’Conner, P., & Campbell, A. (1994). Literacy behind prison
walls. United States Department of Education, Office of Education and
Improvement. Retrieved June 5, 2010 from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs94/94102.pdf
Haralambos, M. & Holborn, M. (1991). Sociology: Themes and perspectives. United
Kingdom, London: Collins Educational.
Harlow, C.W. (2003). Education and correctional populations. Bureau of Justice
Statistics. Retrieved March 30, 2010 from
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=814
Harrison, P.M. & Beck, A.J. (2006). Prisoners in 2005. U.S. Department of Justice,
Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved February 22,
2010 from http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/ascii/p05.txt
Hausfather, S.J. (1996). Vygotski and schooling: Creating a social context for learning.
Action in Teacher Education, 18(2), 1-10.
Horton, P.B., Leslie, R.F., Larson, R.F., & Horton R.L. (1994). The sociology of social
problems. (11th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
104
Hrabowski, F.A. & Robbi, J. (2002, September). The benefits of correctional education.
Journal of Correctional Education, 53(3), 96-99.
James, E. (2009). In Prison, education is your best route to a better life. Guardian.co.uk.
Retrieved March 22, 2010 from ttp://www.guardian.co.uk/society/joepublic/2009
/sep/17/erwin-james-education-prisoners-rehabilitation
Jenkins, H.D. (2002). Mandatory education: A status report. United States Department of
Education.
King, C. (2002). Barriers affecting GED participation among recent high school
dropouts. Adult Basic Education, 12(13), 145-156.
Kjelsberg, E. & Friestad, C. (2008, November). Social adversities in first time and repeat
prisoners. The International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 54(6), 514-526.
Klein, S., Tolbert, M., Burgarin, R., Cataldi, E.F., & Tauscheck, G. (2004). Assessing the
status of prison programs and information needs. United States Department of
Education. Retrieved March 23, 2010 from
http://www.cedatanetwork.org/pdf/corred_report.pdf
Knowles, M. (1984). The adult learner. (6th ed.). Houston, TX: Gulf Press.
Lorenzetti, J. (2003, May). Five factors that boost retention in cohort based programs.
Distance Education Report, 7(10), 2-3.
MacCormick, A. (1931). The education of adult prisoners: A survey and a program.
National Society of Penal Information: New York, NY
105
Martin, R.A. (2003, September). Are you in the zone? Agricultural Education Magazine,
76(2). p.2
Merton, R. (1938). Social structure and anomie. American Sociological Review, 5(3),
672-682.
Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County Tennessee. (2010). The
Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County FY 2010-2011
Operating Budget. Retrieved August 21,2010, from
http://www.nashville.gov/Citizens_Budget/
docs/budgetbook/fy2011/fy11_final_udgetDf
Neely, J.E. & Langston, V.L. (2009). Tennessee department of corrections fiscal year
2008-2009. Tennessee Department of Corrections. Retrieved February 2, 2010
from http://www.state.tn.us/correction/pdf/0809anlrpt.pdf
Nuttal, J., Hollmen, L. & Staley, E.M. (2003). The effect of earning a GED on recidivism
rates. Journal of Correctional Education, 54(3), 90-94.
O’Hare, W.P. (2009). The forgotten fifth. Child poverty in rural America. The Carsey
Institute. University of New Hampshire. Retrieved February 23, 2010 from
http://www.carseyinstitute.unh.edu/publications/Report-OHare-ForgottenFifth.pdf
Ogbu, J. (1987). Opportunity structure, cultural boundaries, and literacy. In language,
literacy and culture: Issues of society and schooling. J. Langer, (Ed.). Norwood,
NJ: Ablex press.
106
Pavis, R. (2002). Preparing federal prison inmates for employment after release; an
innovation at the federal bureau of prisons. Journal of Correctional Education,
53(4), 146-149.
Perry, B. (1993). Neurodevelopment and the neurophysiology of trauma I: Conceptual
considerations for clinical work with maltreated children. The Advisor, 6(1), 1-17.
Potts, G. & Schultz, B. (2008). The freshman seminar and academic success of at-risk
students. College Student Journal, 42(2), Part B.
Rose, J.E. & Voss, M., (2003, December). The unity in community: Fostering academic
success among diverse communities of male offenders in correctional institutions.
The Journal of Correctional Education, 54(4), 131-159.
Siefert, K. & Mandzuk,D. (2006, July). Student cohorts in teaching education: Support
Groups or intellectual communities? Teachers College Record, 108(7), 12961320.
Siegel, L.J. & Senna, J.J. (1994). Juvenile Delinquency: Theory, practice, and law
5th ed. Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN: West Publishing.
Smith, L.G., & Silverman, M. (1994). Functional literacy education for jail inmates: An
examination of the Hillsborough County jail education program. Prison Journal,
74(4), 415-434.
Soney, R. (2004). Defining best practice in the administration of an adult learning
institution. Adult Learning, 14(2), 17-19.
Starratt R.J. (1998). Grounding moral educational leadership in the morality of
teaching and learning. Leading and Managing, 4(4), 243-255.
107
Starratt R.J. (2005). Responsible leadership. The Educational Forum, 69(2), 124-133.
Tennessee Department of Corrections. (2009). Statistical Abstract Education : FY 20082009. Retrieved January 15, 2009 from
http://www.state.tn.us/correction/pdf/2009%20Statabs.pdf
Torres-Velasquez, D. (2000). Sociocultural theory: Standing at the crossroads. Remedial
and Special Education, 21(2), 66-69.
Tewksbury, Erickson & Taylor. (2000). Opportunities lost; the consequences of
eliminating pell grant eligibility for correctional education students. Journal of
Offender Rehabilitation, 60(3), 43-56.
U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2007). Participation in educational programs in state
and federal facilities. Retrieved January 26, 2009 from
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=1
U.S. Congress (1994). Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994.
Retrieved on November 19, 2010 from
http://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/billfs.txt
U.S. Census Bureau. (2006). American Community Survey Data Profile Highlights.
Retrieved January 22, 2010 from http://www.factfinder.census.gov/servlet/
ACSSAFFFacts?_submenuID=factshee_1&_se=on.
U.S. Department of Justice. (2009). Total correction population. Retrieved on February
16, 2010 from http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=11
108
U.S. Department of Education. (2009). High school drop-out and completion rates:
2007 Compendium report. Retrieved March 23, 2010 from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2009/2009064.pdf
Vacca, J.S. (2004). Educated prisoners are less likely to return to prison. Journal Of
Correctional Education, 55(4), 297-305.
Warner, K. (2000). Should we judge education by recidivism rates? Correctional
Education Association News and Notes, 22, 8-9.
Walter, D.F. & Soltis, J.F. (2004). Curriculum and Aims. Thinking about Education
Series, 4th ed. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Wester, B., Klykamp, M. & Rosenfeld, J. (2006). Did falling wages and employment
increase U.S. imprisonment? Social Forces, 84(4), 2291-2311.
Wilkes, T. (2010). Sentence length of inmates participating in education programs.
Davidson County Sheriffs’ Office. Davidson County Sheriff’s Department.
Received March 2, 2010 from direct email.
Wikipedia Encyclopedia. (2010). Definitions of key terms. Retrieved from January 3,
2009 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
Winters, C.A. (2000). Promising practices in adult correctional education. Journal of
Correctional Education, 51(4), 312-314.
Won, S. (2000). The state of America’s children, yearbook 1999. Washington, D.C.:
Children’s Defense Fund Publications.
109
APPENDIX A
INFORMED CONSENT FORM
110
INFORMED CONSENT FORM
I freely and voluntary and without element of force or coercion, consent to be a participant in the
research
Project entitled “An Analysis of Inmates in Tennessee; Contributing Factors That Impact
Participation in GED programs.
This research is being conducted by Turner Nashe Jr. , a doctoral student in the Department of
Educational Administration and Supervision at Tennessee State University. The researcher is
supervised by Dr. Trinetia Respress as an approved research project at Tennessee State
University. The research is being supported with data by the Davidson County Sheriff’s
Department (DCSO). The purpose of this study is to determine the effects of family, peer, and
environmental factors on an individual’s decision to participate in GED programs while
incarcerated. I understand that if I participate in this project, I will be asked to complete a survey
review.
I understand my participation is totally voluntary and that I may stop participation at any time. My
responses to the survey questions will be strictly confidential. My name will not appear on any of
the results. I understand that my responses may be used in the final report but will not identify me
by name. DCSO will have no influence or consequence upon any persons decision to participate
or not participate in this study. According to DCSO policy, a copy of this informed consent form
will be placed in a participants inmate file. Another copy will be given to the inmate that chooses
to participate.
I understand there are no direct benefits to me for participating in this research project. However,
the study may provide a body of knowledge in the future about the effects that certain factors
have upon student’s academic progress. I understand that this consent may be withdrawn at any
time without a penalty. I have been given the right to ask and have answered any inquiry
concerning the study. Questions, if any, have been answered to my satisfaction. The researcher
verifies in writing that, the research project will not produce negative side effects to
inmate participants and that the project is not medical, pharmaceutical, or cosmetic in
nature.
I understand that I may contact the;
Researcher, Turner Nashe Jr., via telephone at 888-202-4924
- Tennessee State University IRB, via telephone at 615-963-2934
- Dr. Trinetia Respress, Tennessee State University, via telephone at 615-963-7261
for answers to questions about this research or my rights. Information on the results of the
research will be sent to DCSO once completed. I have read and understand this consent form.
I would like to receive information on the results of this project when completed.
____yes
____no
________________________________________
Inmate Number
________________________________________
(Name: signed)
__________________________
(Date)
111
APPENDIX B
SURVEY TOOL
112
An Analysis of Inmates in Tennessee; Factors that Impact Participation In GED Programs
.
Please take a moment to complete the following statements concerning the Perceptions of
Incarcerated Adult Inmates towards enrolling in a GED program while incarcerated.
Place the number in the blank that corresponds most closely with your own feelings
beside the statements given below.
Response options equate to the following scale:
1= strongly agree
2= agree
3=no opinion 4=disagree
5=strongly disagree
ONE OF THE REASONS I DID NOT SEEK TO PARTICIPATE IN THE GED
PROGRAM WHILE INCARCERATED IS…….
1. SCHOOL EXPERIENCE
a. Because I don’t enjoy studying.
1
2
3
4
5
b. Because past educational experiences have been unfavorable.
1
2
3
4
5
c. Because my past teachers were not supportive of me as a student.
1
2
3
4
5
d. Because I prefer to learn on my own.
1
2
3
4
5
e. Because past school buildings were not safe learning communities.
1
2
3
4
5
f. Other reason(s) ____________________________________________
2. SELF- CONCEPT AND EFFICACY
a. Because I felt too old to complete one.
1
2
3
4
5
113
b. Because I felt I couldn’t compete academically.
1
2
3
4
5
c. Because I felt the work was too advanced for me to complete.
1
2
3
4
5
d. Because I didn’t think I would be able to finish the course.
1
2
3
4
5
e. Because I can still be smart and not have completed high school or a GED.
1
2
3
4
5
f. Other reasons _______________________________________________
3. HOME ENVIRONMENT
a. Because in the past, I didn’t have time for the study required.
1
2
3
4
5
b. Because in the past, I was unaware of the course I would need to advance
my education.
c.
1
2
3
4
5
Because in the past, the course was offered at an inconvenient location.
1
2
3
4
5
d. Because in the past, I didn’t receive information about the available
course.
1
2
3
4
5
e. Because in the past, I had transportation problems.
1
2
3
4
5
f. Because in the past, earning money was more important than going to
school.
114
1
2
3
4
5
g. Other reason(s) _______________________________________________
4. FAMILY INFLUENCE
a. Because my parents were not supportive of my previous school
experiences.
1
2
3
4
5
b. Because my family does not currently encourage participation in a GED
program.
1
2
3
4
5
c. Because my family does not place a high value on education.
1
2
3
4
5
d. Because education is not relevant to the way my family lives.
1
2
3
4
5
e. Because my family values working over going to school.
1
2
3
4
5
f. Because my family is/was experiencing significant changes in life
circumstances.
1
2
3
4
5
g. Other reason(s) _______________________________________________
5. PEER INFLUENCE
a. Because in the past, my friends didn’t encourage me to attend class.
1
2
3
4
5
b. Because my friends now, don’t encourage me to attend GED class.
115
1
2
3
4
5
c. Because in the past, my friends didn’t have a positive outlook on school.
1
2
3
4
5
d. Because my friends now, don’t have a positive outlook on school.
1
2
3
4
5
e. Because in the past, my friends didn’t need a school education to earn a
living.
1
2
3
4
5
f. Because my friends now, don’t need a school education to earn a living
1
2
3
4
5
g. Because I don’t want my friends to see me in a GED class.
1
2
3
4
5
h. Other reason(s) _______________________________________________
6. FACILITY ENVIRONMENT
a. Because I was involved in too many other activities.
1
2
3
4
5
b. Because facility staff is not supportive of me.
1
2
3
4
5
c. Because there are other barriers to me enrolling in a GED program.
1
2
3
4
5
d. Because other inmates would not be supportive of me enrolling in a GED
program.
1
2
3
4
5
e. Because the GED is offered in an unsafe area.
116
1
2
3
4
5
f. Because I don’t have any interest in taking GED classes.
1
2
3
4
5
g. Because the amount of time required to finish a GED conflicts with my
sentence length.
1
2
3
4
5
h. Because I didn’t think the course would meet my needs.
1
2
3
4
5
7. POST- RELEASE EXPECTATION
a. Because a GED won’t help me find a job upon release.
1
2
3
4
5
b. Because a GED won’t help me go to college upon release.
1
2
3
4
5
c. Because having a GED won’t keep me from returning to jail.
1
2
3
4
5
d. Because a GED will not help me advance in life.
1
2
3
4
5
e. Because a criminal record will limit my opportunities.
1
2
3
4
5
f. Other reason(s) ________________________________________________
8. DEMOGRAPHICS
i. Gender
1. Male
ii. Age
2. Female
1. 18-30
2. 31-45
3. 46-54
4. 55-60
117
5. 60+
iii. How long is current sentence?
1. Less than 2yrs
2. 2-5yrs.
3. 6-10yrs
4. 10+
iv. Location of residence
1. City
2. Rural
3. Small Town
v. Marital status
1. Married
2. Single
3. Divorced
vi. Number of full years of high school equivalent education
1. One
2. Two
3. Three
4. Four
vii. Life satisfaction
1. Very satisfied
2. Somewhat satisfied
4. Somewhat unsatisfied.
3. Satisfied
5. Very unsatisfied.
Additional Comments
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________
118
APPENDIX C
INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL
119
120
APPENDIX D
DAVIDSON COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE
LETTER OF COOPERATION
121