| .. | njhome | citizen | business | government | services A to Z | departments |
 |
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
Task Force Members Scott MacFadden, Chair, Business Administrator, Township of Brick Alternates Laurie Hall, New Jersey Association on Corrections Staff Representatives Shelley Finlayson, (Former State Employment and Training Commission intern ) Executive Summary The Corrections Education Task Force was convened by the State Employment and Training Commission (SETC) and the former State Council on Vocational Education (SCOVE) to analyze and review corrections education. The impetus for the Task Force was to fulfill SCOVE's mandate under the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act. The report describes a system that has grown from approximately 6,000 in 1975 to more than 25,000 offenders and more than 19,000 parolees currently. Of those who are incarcerated, it is estimated that more than 70% of them perform at the two lowest literacy levels (as measured by the National Adult Literacy Survey). They lack the knowledge and skills to successfully compete in the economy. It also indicates that it cost approximately $25,000 per offender for each year of incarceration. Yet, only between 1% and 2.5% of the Department of Corrections' budget is spent on education. The report acknowledges the importance of an orientation toward security and confinement. However, it indicates that rehabilitation should also be a priority for the 96% of offenders that will eventually be released from the State's correctional facilities The Task Force argues that education is an essential element in the rehabilitation process. To substantiate this claim, the report cites studies that show a correlation between education and a reduction in the rate of recidivism. The report also reasons that like the rest of society, ex-offenders need marketable skills to compete and function in this economy. Although education does not guarantee rehabilitation, it can help an offender acquire the necessary skills to succeed upon release. Therefore, the Task Force advocates for expanded and improved educational opportunity as a means of reducing the likelihood of recidivism and helping to deter ex-offenders from further criminal involvement. Increased successes in rehabilitation can result from expansion and improvement of educational programs. Successful education/rehabilitation efforts can result in cost savings, by reducing the expenditures for reincarceration. Modest increases in educational spending can be offset by the significant savings achieved through reduced recidivism. With greater emphasis on education as outlined in the report and better collaboration between state and local agencies, barriers can be overcome and effective endeavors launched. The report does acknowledge some of the Department of Corrections' undertakings in providing education programs. It also recognizes some of the constraints under which the Department operates that may hamper broader educational efforts. The Task Force sees expanded collaboration with other agencies and better communication with all stakeholders of the system as a means of reducing barriers and gaining greater support for educational endeavors. The specific recommendations contained in this report call for:
Many factors contribute to one's involvement in criminal behavior. However, the Task Force believes that investment in education as an approach toward rehabilitation can yield significant benefits to both the individual and society. The potential benefits to society should provide the justification for improvement and expansion of corrections education. Likewise, it is the potential societal benefit that underlies the rationale for the recommendations contained in this report. It is in society's best interest, both in terms of cost and safety, to maximize rehabilitation efforts for the large percentage of offenders who will be released. I. BACKGROUND In a society and economy demanding ever more education, both for citizenship and for productivity, we increasingly look to a life of learning and expanded skills. But we tend to overlook an ever growing population that has very low average levels of literacy -- those in our state and federal prison systems.(1) To the degree that the purposes [of corrections] are rehabilitation and reintegration, education and particularly vocational preparation activities, have become increasingly important because one key to success in life outside institutions is education. This is not to imply that education can solve all human problems; however, marketable skills coupled with the ability to read and write greatly enhance the probability that an individual released from a correctional institution will become a contributing member of society.(2) Introduction New Jersey and the rest of the nation's correctional systems are facing a crisis: a steadily increasing offender population who enter the system with inadequate educational and workplace skills and leave much the same way, ill-prepared for work or training. Understandably custody (security and confinement) must be a major focus of the correctional system; however, education and rehabilitation must be a priority too. This report by the Corrections Education Task Force looks at how education in the broadest sense can better prepare offenders to be productive, contributing members of society. More specifically, the report describes the current system of corrections education as it relates to preparing offenders for society and makes recommendations for improvements. The Task Force is not naively asserting that education will ameliorate the problems that causes one to engage in criminal activity nor that education is the magic pill to cure all offenders. Neither does the Task Force downplay the importance of personal responsibility in crime and Rehabilitation. However, the Task Force does believe that possession of academic and vocational skills increases one's chance of success. For example, increasing offenders educational level will mitigate the disparity in skills between them and the general population, thus improving their ability to compete for jobs. Moreover, we maintain that organized transitional services when integrated into the overall educational program greatly enhance the probability of success. Although the recommendations contained in this report would require additional fiscal resources, robust efforts at rehabilitation -- as well as intervention -- will in the long run free up dollars which otherwise would be earmarked for the criminal justice system. The more offenders rehabilitated, the greater savings to society, dollars that could be applied to other societal priorities. The cost to incarcerate individuals, not to mention the other costs associated with processing them through the criminal justice system, further compounds the dilemma. The New Jersey Department of Corrections (DOC), estimates the average cost per year to incarcerate an offender is roughly $25,000.(3) A higher estimate places the cost at about $31,000.(4) Both estimates exclude construction costs, which are thought to be about $75,000 per bed, excluding the debt service for these capital costs.(5) Only 1% to 2.5% of this money is spent on education. The dilemma is even more striking when considered with an estimated 96% eventual released rate for New Jersey inmates.(6) Fifty-four (54%) percent of the State's adult inmates are 30 years of age or younger, a median age of 29.(7) The majority of inmates will be released when they are still of working age and could be productive citizens.(8) Juvenile offenders, likewise, will also return to the community, but much sooner. Problem
From 1980 to 1993, the nation's incarcerated population -- federal, state, and local jails -- grew from 501,886 to 1,364,686, accounting for a staggering growth rate of 171.9%.(9) In New Jersey, the number of adult state inmates went from less than 6,000 in 1975 to 24,028 in July of 1994,(10) a growth rate of more than 400%. Including adults and juveniles, most recent figures from DOC indicate that there are 25,352 individuals incarcerated in the State system.(11) Another 19,139 parolees are under DOC's supervision through the Bureau of Parole.(12) Additionally, county facilities also house a significant inmate population, some awaiting trial and others serving county or state time. A survey by the Association for Children of New Jersey in cooperation with the New Jersey Detention Association found that on March 21, 1995 the juvenile count in county detention facilities was 871, 140% over capacity.(13) Likewise, on January 17, 1995 the total county jail population was 16,000, 128% over capacity.(14) The Bureau of Justice Statistics conducted a three year recidivism study of persons released from prisons in 11 states (New Jersey included) in 1983.(15) The study looked at recidivism from three perspectives: rearrests, reconvictions, and reincarceration. It showed that within three years 62.5% were rearrested for serious felonies or misdemeanors, 46.8% were reconvicted, and 41.4% returned to prison or jail. Another Bureau of Justice Statistic study compared federal and state inmates and found that about 57% of federal inmates were recidivist, while 80% of state inmates were previously incarcerated.(16) The DOC in conjunction with the New Jersey Criminal Disposition Commission Data Committee published a three year follow-up study of adult inmates released from New Jersey prisons in 1984.(17) This study found that 62% of all these offenders were rearrested within a three year period, 38% were reconvicted, and 24% returned to prison or jail. However, the author cautions that these estimates may be understated due to missing data. It was also estimated that 79% of the State's inmates have prior convictions, with 9 prior arrests and 6 prior convictions.(18) The majority of offenders nationally are poor and lack the educational and training skills to be productive members of society. Approximately 70% of offenders perform at the two lowest literacy levels on prose, document, and quantitative scales.(19) Similar estimates (75%) are offered for New Jersey.(20) Roughly one third of offenders nationally and within New Jersey are estimated to have disabilities, with 11 percent nationally reporting having learning disabilities.(21) A 1995 study by the Association for Children of New Jersey in cooperation with the New Jersey Detention Association indicates that many juveniles in detention centers have special education needs. According to the study, "several counties estimate that 90-95% of their detention population had been or should have been classified for special education services."(22) Clearly, educational disadvantage is pervasive among the incarcerated population and is highly correlated with crime, incarceration, and recidivism. For fiscal year 1995, there was a cumulative enrollment count of 13,465 in adult corrections education programs and 3,419, in juvenile programs.(23) These counts include multiple enrollments (one individual in more than one class during the fiscal year) and new enrollment, available when students complete programs or drop out. Office of Educational Services (OES) indicates, however, that at any given point there are approximately 3,500 students enrolled in their educational programs. Because of the limited number of slots available at any given time, many interested offenders must add their names to waiting lists. Educational opportunity in county facilities tend to be more limited than what is found in their state counterparts, but some programs, especially some for juveniles are well designed. With the exception of eligible juveniles serving state sentences in county facilities, the State does not mandate or provide a dedicated source of funding for educating offenders in these institutions. II. DESCRIPTION OF SYSTEM Overview of New Jersey's Correctional System The State's correctional system is organized around three institutional complexes: adult and youth under the jurisdiction of DOC and juveniles under the Juvenile Justice Commission (JJC). At present, there are nine adult institutions, three youth institutions, and two juvenile secure care facilities. There is also a newly developed boot camp for juveniles. There are no state institutions exclusively for female juvenile offenders. The Department operates a number of minimum security camps, which are satellite units to their institutions, and the Department also houses inmates in county correctional institutions. The counties operate facilities for short term incarceration of both adult and juvenile offenders. The Juvenile Justice Commission within the Department of Law and Public Safety has recently assumed the responsibility for the operation of all state operated juvenile facilities. Correctional Education in New Jersey The Department of Corrections (DOC), as one of its major objectives, states that its role is "[t]o ensure that persons committed to the state correctional institutions . . . are provided with the care, discipline, training and treatment needed to prepare them for reintegration into the community."(24) Much of the training and treatment is coordinated through OES, which is responsible for the provision of education in state correctional facilities and OES functions like a public school district. Each of the twelve institutions under DOC has a Director of Education, who is responsible to both the Institutional Superintendent and the Executive Director of OES. Both OES staff and institutional education staff are subject to the same credentialing requirements as public school educators. Academic as well as vocational education programs are offered throughout the State system. Although there is some variation in programs from one institution to the next, the academic offerings at each institution, at a minimum, include pre-secondary and secondary curricula. Pre-secondary curricula are designed for students whose grade level is below a 7.5 grade level and secondary curricula, for students at or above a 7.5 grade level.(25) Both curricula emphasize the acquisition of basic academic skills consistent with their appropriate grade level. In both the youth and the adult complexes, the programs are typically remedial because the students are older and assumed to have had exposure to the skills associated with the curriculum. The programs generally focus on development of basic skills and preparation for the General Education Development (GED) test. English as a Second Language (ESL) programs are available at most institutions as well. In the past, OES had collaborated with some community colleges to provide college programs at a few institutions; it also offered college preparatory programs. However, because of budget cuts, college programs have been eliminated. The Department offers numerous vocational programs; specific curricula varies by institution because of institutional inmate profiles and available resources (See Appendix A). Vocational programs provide skills training in distinct areas. Although certificates are awarded for course completion, not all programs result in industry-based skills certificates. However, such certificates are program components of the automotive trades shops at both East Jersey State Prison and Bayside State Prison, both of which offer Automotive Services Excellence (ASE) Certification to qualified students. Trade specific certifications are offered by East Jersey State Prison's Culinary Arts Programs and the Edna Mahan Correctional Facility for Women's Cosmetology Program. The Department's Apprenticeship Program currently has fifty-four (54) registered apprentices and eight (8) registered apprenticeship sites, i.e.:
OES notes that in conjunction with New Jersey's Department of Education and the U.S. Department of Labor, they developed the first Corrections-specific, federally approved, Apprenticeship Standards in the country, which have been in effect since the mid-eighties. The Department also offers an array of pre-vocational programs which provide opportunities for career exploration, the acquisition of employability skills, vocational assessment and counseling. These programs are typically targeted at younger inmate pupils, but are also offered to adult inmates. In addition, DOC has entered into a few collaborative endeavors with educational institutions. Camden County Technical and Vocational Schools (CCTV), for example, has developed a partnership with Riverfront State Prison in Camden and Bayside State Prison at its Ancora unit. Adhering to the same curriculum and standards utilized by its full-time adult campus programs, CCTV provides occupational training for approximately 200 inmates per school year at these facilities. The program at Riverfront is beginning its sixth year and at Bayside, its fifth. Programs offered at Riverfront include Automotive Technology, Electronics, Drafting, Construction Trades Technology, Masonry, and Culinary Arts. CCTV training programs at Bayside include Construction Trades Technology and Culinary Arts. Inmates are given a progress chart, which identifies the competencies achieved, and those who complete a training program receive CCTV certificates. With Carl Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act funds, which the New Jersey Department of Education administers and makes available to DOC, OES has purchased APTICOM, an assessment instrument that measures vocational aptitudes and interests and educational attainment in math and language skills. According to OES, the results of this assessment are compiled in a comprehensive report that provides valuable information to the educational staff and the student. APTICOM has been administered to 8,406 inmates as of December 1996. Forty-seven units are currently operational system wide with two additional units reserved for placement at South Woods State Prison, scheduled to open in May 1997. APTICOM is also operational in Union, Mercer, Hudson, Ocean, and Salem County correctional facilities as well as community-based programs in Camden and Essex Counties. Data from the APTICOM is being used to construct a group profile to determine appropriate programs for institutional populations and vocational program placements. The two juvenile institutions formerly under DOC (Jamesburg and Juvenile Medium Security) also offer pre-secondary, secondary, and vocational programs for their populations. The academic programs tend to be more reflective of the typical school model and have as one of their goals to prepare students to reenter the school system upon release. The secondary program focuses on preparing students to take and pass the GED test. Vocational programs in the two juvenile facilities are similar to those offered at the adult and youth institutions. The educational department at Jamesburg also developed a collaborative program with Middlesex County Vocational Technical School to provide vocational training for a select group of offenders. Under this arrangement, students are transported to the vocational school in the evening. Educational programs at the newly established Boot Camp are being developed. Educational programs at county facilities vary, but for the most part are not as well organized as those offered at state institutions. This is in part because of the short terms most offenders spend at these facilities. However, greater connection and continuity between county educational efforts and those offered at the State level is warranted. As with their state counterparts, there is limited emphasis on transition into employment, training, or educational programs. Educational Funding Although thought to represent a significant portion of the State's corrections budget, education accounts for a small percentage (between 1% and 2.5%) of the total dollars earmarked for corrections.(26) The overall budget for corrections for the fiscal year covering 1994-95 was $806 million. Of this amount, approximately $15 million represents State Facility Education Act (SFEA) funding,(27) determined by enrollments of school aged youth in correctional education programs, and earmarked only for this youthful population who have not earned a high school diploma or GED. SFEA funding, which represents the lion's share of corrections education dollars, is mandated by law and specifically designated for juveniles in state institutions. This funding does not apply to juveniles in county institutions; pending state legislation, the funding will be extended to county institutions. A portion of the Direct State Support funding to DOC funds educational programs for adult offenders.(28) Approximately 1% of the $546.5 million Direct State Support budget for 1994-95 was earmarked for adult education. There is also a 1% allocation for corrections through Carl Perkins Act. On the other hand, the State does not fund adult education in county institutions. From FYs 92-94 about $12 million in SFEA funding was lost. During this period the State retained the funding, unlike prior years where non-spent funds were carried forward. According to documents provided by OES, these funds were not expended because of state imposed freezes on hiring and spending.(29) They further indicate that despite efforts to exempt SFEA dollars from freezes, they were prevented from using the funds and not allowed to carry them forward. III. REVIEW AND ANALYSIS Education and Rehabilitation The most cost-effective intervention to obviate the need for rehabilitation is to provide improved educational, economic, and social opportunities for at-risk populations prior to their involvement in the criminal justice system. However, for those who do become incarcerated, corrections education could provide a second chance to ameliorate their educational disadvantage and skills deficiency, better equipping ex-offenders to compete for employment, education, and training opportunities. Ex-offenders, who read with understanding, can accurately complete forms, and analyze numbers are more likely to have high self-esteem, find employment, and avoid criminal behavior than those who lack basic educational and job readiness skills.(30) Furthermore, studies have found a positive correlation between education and nonrecidivism. Cogburn (1988) and O'Neil (1990) found that Alabama inmates who completed credit or diploma courses offered by postsecondary institutions had a significantly lower recidivism rate than those that did not.(31) O'Neil also asserted that education prepares inmates psychologically for reentry into society. Harer studied recidivism among offenders released from federal prison in 1987.(32) He found that the more educational programs successfully completed while incarcerated, the lower the recidivism rate. He also noted a significantly lower recidivism rate for those who had jobs waiting for them upon release than those who had no definite employment plans. Inmates released to halfway houses also had significantly lower recidivism rates than those who were not. To determine what works in community correctional approaches, Palmer examined 23 literature reviews and nine meta-analyses of intervention to determine their impact on recidivism.(33) Among the 20 approaches the author identified and examined were employment, academic and vocational education, and life skills training. Palmer also includes a variety of counseling and therapeutic approaches utilized in correctional settings. In attempting to isolate the effects of specific interventions, he found that on average, employment, academic and vocational education and life skills were associated with lower recidivism rates. He noted, however, that programs typically include a variety of approaches, e.g., vocational training, which often includes education and employment components, or life skills approach, which in this analysis included academic and vocational training. It is through the combined effects of the multiple features, that a more accurate understanding of what works can be gained, asserts Palmer. The author also speculated that other factors, such as better social support networks outside of the institution, contribute to lower recidivism. The aforementioned studies suggest that the menu of corrections education should include not only academic and vocational training, but learning experiences that facilitate acquisition of additional skills necessary for success in society, life skills, cognitive skills and behavior management skills, among others. Moreover, education in this broader sense may contribute to a more stable correctional environment by engaging offenders in positive activities. This research also provides evidence for an inverse relationship between education and recidivism, and it offers support for linking a variety of strategies to address offenders' needs and for integrating educational programs with transitional services. When the definition of education is expanded to include cognitive skills and life skills training, along with learning strategies to improve behavior and reasoning, an even stronger correlation is suggested. The fact is that the value of education to success in modern society and its contribution to the development and well-being of the individual and society is well established. Although one may argue that the above research is not definitive and needs more scrutiny, it is hard to refute that improved skills, better equip people to compete and function in society. Education's link to employment and economic success is also undeniable. In the broadest sense, education can help one acquire the necessary skills to succeed in this changing economy. Expansion of programs that help offenders develop solid academic, occupational, and life skills coupled with services that facilitate transition from "incarceration-to-employment, training, and/or education" offer the possibility that upon release they will use these skills toward positive endeavors. Education also infuses societies values in individuals. Notwithstanding individual predilections and social and environmental factors, there is a high correlation between lack of quality education and incarceration. Thus, through education one may become more literate, employable, and self-sufficient, all of which can contribute to rehabilitation. Family Literacy and Corrections Education The vast majority of offenders, as mentioned above, function at low literacy levels. They are ill-prepared to contribute to the educational and social development of their family units. As parents, they tend to be less involved with their children's education, find it difficult to help them with their school work, and are poor role models as learners. New Jersey's Council on Adult Education and Literacy notes that "[p]arents who are involved in school have children who are better achievers, have higher cognitive skills, higher achievement test scores, and better attendance."(34) Without improved literacy levels on the part of the parents, there is a great likelihood that their children will also suffer a similar fate. Corrections education programs can help offenders develop skills to better communicate with family members. Offenders can better appreciate the value of education and serve as role models for improved literacy in the family. Formal family literacy programs can be part of the corrections education offerings. North Hampton County Prison in Easton, Pennsylvania, for example, developed a family literacy program with support from the Barbara Bush Foundation, the U.S. Office of Education, and the Pennsylvania Department of Education. The curriculum, When Bonds Are Broken, was designed to provide literacy and parenting instruction to incarcerated adults who are parents. The curriculum also focused on self-esteem, awareness of feelings and past relational experiences. The program was piloted with 49 adult male offenders and 101 of their children. The project was successful in increasing:
Programs such as these can provide instruction in educational skills, while helping offenders stress the importance of learning to their children and other family members. Need for Corrections Education Since society has becomes more cost-conscious, it has questioned the value of educating inmates. Yet education can prove to be one of the most significant factors in reducing society's investment in corrections. Indeed, if education can improve the likelihood of success upon release, the potential for savings is enormous with each rehabilitation -- approximately $25,000 per year for each offender that does not return to the system.(36) Whereas, savings realized from reduction or elimination of educational programs and services, would account for only about $500 per adult offender served.(37) The Task Force believes that system improvement must involve greater integration of education into the total correction's environment. This must be strongly reinforced with the community beyond the institution. To accomplish this, the workforce readiness community must be part of the corrections education process. By involving employers, educators, and training professionals in developing workforce readiness strategies for individuals reentering society, these stakeholders will begin to understand the difficulties many ex-offenders face in attempting to assume socially acceptable roles in society. For example, ex-offenders who are truthful about their criminal records may not be considered for jobs for which they are qualified. Many barriers such as over-crowding and limited classroom space strains the system's ability to address education needs and deliver quality programs. Likewise, inadequate funding for programs, especially for the adult population, and impediments to spending allotted funds in a timely fashion exacerbate the problem. In August 1995, based on a recommendation from the Task Force, the SETC submitted a letter to Senate President Donald DiFrancesco supporting S-1435, a bill introduced by Senator John Ewing to alleviate problems associated with spending SFEA funds. The bill proposes to exempt SFEA funds from State freezes or diversions. Although barriers exist to making substantial improvements in corrections education, OES has reported the following accomplishments:
OES also notes future plans which include continued pursuit of public/private sector ventures, establishment of aftercare procedures to facilitate transition, and expansion of distance learning initiatives. IV. RECOMMENDATIONS The Task Force asserts that society has a major stake in corrections education. The success or failure of education will influence how prepared individuals are to assume productive roles in society when they leave an institution. Education can help one acquire the necessary skills to meet the challenges of successfully reentering society. Although this report advocates for expansion and improvements in corrections education, it also recommends better evaluation and tracking to determine what works best for which offenders. Without this, it is difficult to draw solid conclusions. Envisioning the Future Although the expectations for corrections education are varied, rehabilitation must be an expectation for offenders who will be released. Improvement of academic and vocational skills, development of socially acceptable behaviors and attitudes, and preparation for transition to work and/or school are necessary goals of corrections education. Corrections education must be viewed as a process that starts at the beginning of incarceration, provides progressive stages for development throughout offenders' terms, and prepares them for further education and work outside the institution. It must prepare offenders to assume responsibility for their own development -- educational, career, and social. The question arises whether education should be mandatory for all inmates or at least for those who have not earned a high school diploma or its equivalency. With finite resources and a demand that exceeds the capacity to serve potential students, this may be a moot issue. On the other hand, mandated participation for incarcerated juveniles, who have not earned a high school diploma or its equivalency should continue and the requirement should extend to those in county facilities. Although corrections education for adults should remain optional given current funding levels, it should be readily available and strongly encouraged, especially for those who have not earned a high school diploma or its equivalency. A priority/triage system should be developed that establishes successive educational benchmarks. The educational plan should determine appropriate individual attainment goals and objectives given offenders' time and educational abilities as assessed by a learning specialist. Based on the plan, access to varying levels of service should be determined, assuring that those in greatest need and closest to release have ample opportunity to meet expectations. Academic and occupational skills proficiency should weigh heavily in parole decisions. Postsecondary opportunities should be available, with inmate fees supporting the program. Improving Curriculum and Delivery Corrections education students, who often have failed with traditional didactic teaching and learning approaches, can benefit from more applied and experiential strategies that tie learning to real life contexts, facilitating learning by doing. To increase the likelihood that knowledge and skills learned in the classroom will be applied outside, students should have the opportunity to utilize them in situations that reflect real life activities. Technology-driven distance learning, self-directed and independent learning activities, and volunteers can provide a more efficient and cost-effective means for providing and/or supplementing instruction. New Jersey Network, community colleges, and vocational schools have experience with technology driven distance learning and are interested in educational programs for offenders. Assessments should facilitate both teacher and student-driven learning activities and institutional libraries should be expanded to support these activities. Current and future demands for educational services and appropriate funding and staffing patterns should be established for all programs.(38) Although self-directed learning, peer instruction, and use of volunteers should be utilized, appropriate staffing levels should be maintained. Facilitating Linkages and Transitions Linkages must be developed to connect outside resources to the corrections education enterprise. The report, Linking Education and the Workplace: An Imperative for New Jersey's Economic Future, makes a compelling case for a "strong mutually beneficial relationship between the education system and the needs of the evolving labor market."(39) This too is essential for the corrections education system. Employers, training and education providers, organizations and agencies, and volunteers must be marshaled to offer programs and services. The partnerships between Middlesex County Vocational Technical School and Jamesburg Training School for Boys and Cumberland County College and the Federal Correctional Institution at Fairton offer examples of effective collaboration. Vocational education must avoid the pitfalls of gender stereotyping. Education should be linked to offenders' jobs within the institution, providing offenders an opportunity to practice their skills within the context of work. Programs such as construction trades, barber/beautician, food services, auto mechanics, computer programming and operations, teacher aide, nurse aide or medical assistant are examples where skills taught in institutional training programs can be further developed through application to worksites. Likewise, correction enterprises and programs where inmates provide labor for government agencies and businesses should be expanded and designed to integrate academic and vocational skills, while helping offenders develop marketable skills. Transitional services are critical to the successful reintegration of offenders into society. Correction enterprises can provide transitional opportunities for offenders moving from incarceration to society and extending beyond the release period to serve as a bridge to a "real job" and/or educational placement. Borrowing from School-to-Work principles, correction enterprises should offer broad-based learning experiences in occupational fields and provide students with a chance to practice skills in real-life situations. Greater opportunities for registered apprenticeships and industry recognized skills certificates should be explored. Because the needs of the different corrections populations (i.e.,adults, juveniles, and females) may differ somewhat, strategies should be tailored to each group. For juveniles, School-to-Work (STW) should also be incorporated into their curriculum and connections with emerging STW partnerships should be established. Juvenile Justice Commission must play an active role in STW at the State level and educators, under their jurisdiction, should be involved with the Workforce Investment Boards' (WIBs) School-to-Work subcommittees. Collaborations with comprehensive and vocational districts must be insured. Specific Recommendations: Administrative
Intergovernmental Cooperation
Programmatic
Juveniles
Females
Adults
Transitions
Appendix A Vocational Programs at State Correctional Institutions
Note: PT = part-time programs. Appendix A.1 Institutional Abbreviations Used in Appendix A
Appendix B Public Hearings The Corrections Education Task Force held three public hearings to solicit comments about how corrections education can best prepare incarcerated individuals to become productive workers and law-abiding citizens upon release. The hearings were held at the following sites:
The public was notified of the hearings through notices in newspapers, a mailing to more than 700 people, and telephone calls. A total of 30 individuals provided testimony at the three hearings, 6 in Trenton, 7 in Gloucester Township, and 17 in Newark. The hearings attracted an additional 28 observers. An aide to Senator John Ewing, provided testimony at the Trenton hearing. Senator Ewing attended the hearing in Newark. Although he was not included in the count of persons providing testimony, he did challenge the Task Force to tour institutions' education facilities and talk with their staff. Following Senator Ewing's suggestion, Task Force members have visited the following four State correctional institutions:
Also, among the individuals providing testimony, four people identified themselves as ex-offenders. Their comments provided an example of how individuals with the aid of education and support from corrections staff and mentors can make a successful transition back into society. State Employment and Training Commission Members Christine Todd Whitman, Governor John J. Heldrich, Chairman April Aaronson, Division of Health & Human Services Carol Novrit, Morris, Sussex, Warren Job Training Partnership Henry A. Plotkin, Executive Director 1. Barton, P and Coley, R, Captive Students: Education and Training in America's Prisons, Policy Information Center, Educational Testing Service, 1996. 2. 2. Source: Rice, et al., Assessment of Quality Vocational Education in State Prisons. System Science, Inc., 1980. This report was prepared for the U.S. Department of Education, Bureau of Vocational and Adult Education. 3. Source: A report prepared by the New Jersey Department of Corrections for the State Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee. Report dated May 4, 1994. 4. Final Report of the New Jersey Sentencing Policy Study Commission, January 1994. 5. Ibid 6. Source: Department of Corrections/Office of Educational Services. 7. Source: New Jersey Department of Corrections, Annual Offender Characteristics Report, December 31, 1993. This end of year report was prepared by the Office of Policy and Planning and released on June 30, 1994. 8. Ibid. 9. Beck, A. & Gilliard, D. K., "Prisoners in 1994" Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice. August 1995. 10. Source: New Jersey Department of Corrections, Correctional Population: Growth and Characteristics 1980-1994, September 9, 1994. 11. Source: Department of Corrections/Office of Educational Services data faxed to the Corrections Education Task Force. Fax dated September 20, 1995. The population count includes juvenile counts from Juvenile Medium Security Facility and New Jersey Training School for Boys. 12. Figures for current individuals incarcerated and parolee provided by DOC/Office of Educational Services. 13. Juvenile Detention Centers: Holding Kids Ordered to Other Placements, Special Report, an Information/Policy Brief on New Jersey's Children, Association of Children of New Jersey, April 1995. Percentage calculated from raw numbers. 14. Source: Administrative Office of the Courts County Jail Population Delineation, 1995. 15. Beck, A. & Shipley, B. "Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1983," Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice. 16. Source "Comparing Federal and State Prison Inmates 1991, Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice. Percentages include violent and nonviolent offenses. 17. Corbo. Release Outcome - 1984: A Follow-up Study, New Jersey Department of Corrections, February 1992. 18. Final Report of the New Jersey Sentencing Policy, January 1994. 19. Source: Haigler, Harlow, O'Connor, and Campbell. Literacy Behind Prison Walls: Profiles of the Prison Population from the National Literacy Survey, Educational Testing Service, 1994. Study and report prepared for the U. S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. The assessment instrument, the NALS Survey, measured literacy on a five point scale (level 1 being the lowest and level 5 the highest). 20. Estimates provided by the Department of Corrections, Office of Educational Services (DOC/OES). 21. Source: New Jersey estimates derived from DOC/OES and national estimates taken from Haigler, Harlow, O'Connor, and Campbell, Literacy Behind Prison Walls,: Profiles of the Prison Population from the National Adult Literacy Survey. See above footnote for complete citation. 22. Juvenile Detention Centers: Holding Kids Ordered to Other Placements, Special Report, an Information/Policy Brief on New Jersey's Children, Association of Children of New Jersey, April 1995. 23. Source: Enrollment figures provided by DOC/OES. 24. Source: New Jersey Department of Corrections, Correctional Population: Growth and Characteristics 1980- 1994, September 9, 1994. 25. Grade levels are based on standardized test, most often the Test of Adult Basic Education (TABE). 26. Percentages derived from charts and a calculation of data presented in the Department of Corrections FY 1995 Budget Overview. 27. SFEA funds are based on Quality Education Act (QEA) district aid formula and flow from the Department of Education to the Department of Corrections for school age youth. Source of figures: FY 1995 Budget Overview, New Jersey Department of Corrections. 28. Direct State Support includes funding for operation of adult, youth, and juvenile correctional facilities, parole supervision, and central planning, management and support services. (FY 1995 Budget Review). 29. Source: memo from OES dated December 1996. 30. Ibid, Haigler, Harlow, O'Connor, and Campbell. 31. Source: Cogburn, Recidivism Study: Positive Terminations from J. F. Ingram State Technical College 1976-1986, J. F. Ingram State Technical College, Deatsville, Alabama 36022, 1988, and O'Neil, Correctional Higher Education: Reduced Recidivism? Journal of Correctional Education, Vol 41 (1) March 1990. 32. Harer, Recidivism Among Federal Prison Releasees in 1987: A Preliminary Report. Federal Bureau of Prisons, Office of Research and Evaluation, March 1994. 33. Palmer, Programmatic and Non-programmatic Aspects of Successful Intervention, Paper prepared for the International Association of Residential and Community Alternatives' "What Works in Community Corrections: A Consensus Conference," Philadelphia, November 1993. 34. New Jersey Council on Adult Education & Literacy, Meeting the Challenge of the 21st Century, October 15, 1993. 35. Source: The Barbara Bush Foundation for Family Literacy Project Director Questionnaire and the When Bonds Are Broken Curriculum. This information was available free from the project. 36. Estimated cost of maintaining an offender in a State correctional institution, based on Department of Corrections calculations. 37. Estimate was calculated by dividing the FY 1995 adult cumulative inmate student enrollment count (13,465) into the allocation for adult offender education programs for that year ($6,745,500). Both the enrollment count and allocation figure were provided by OES. 38. As an example, see Department of Corrections Justification for Increase in the Categorical Aid Factor, prepared by Dr. Patricia Holliday and submitted to the Department in September 1994. 39. The Task Force on Education and Workforce Quality, Linking Education and the Workplace: An Imperative for New Jersey's Economic Future, State Employment and Training Commission, July 1996. 40. Note that newly enacted federal and State law requires person convicted of offenses that involve or have as an element the possession or use of a controlled substance must complete a drug treatment program licensed by the NJ Department of Health and Senior Services to be eligible for public assistance benefits under the State's welfare program.
|
| statewide: njhome | citizen | business | government | services A to Z | departments |
