Educational Programs and Recidivism in Oklahoma: Another Look

• Author: Dennis R. Brewster,Susan F. Sharp
• Date: 01 September 2002
• Published date: 01 September 2002
• DOI: 10.1177/003288550208200302
• Subject Matter: Articles

THE PRISON JOURNAL / September 2002Brewster, Sharp / EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS AND RECIDIVISM

EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS

AND RECIDIVISM IN OKLAHOMA:

ANOTHER LOOK

DENNIS R. BREWSTER

SUSAN F. SHARP

University of Oklahoma

Prior researchsuggests that educational programs are one of the most effective tools

in reducing recidivismrates. In this study, however,the authors found that some edu-

cational programsadministered in Oklahoma may not have an ameliorative effect on

criminality.Specifically, they found that completion of a generalequivalency diploma

program was stronglyassociated with longer survival times outside of prison, par-

ticularly for women. However,for both men and women, completion of vocational-

technical training while incarceratedwas linked to shorter survival times. This indi-

cates the need to evaluate the types of training offered in prisons.

Incarceration rates have soared during the past two decades of the 20th

century. From 1990 to 1998, the number of prisoners in the U.S. increased

from 292 per 100,000 residents to 461 per 100,000 residents (Beck &

Mumola, 1998). With increasing numbers of the American population incar-

cerated, researchers and corrections officials alike are exploring ways to

reduce the likelihood of offenders returning to prison once released. Educa-

tion has been viewed as one effectivemeans of reducing recidivism (Council

of State Governments, 1998; Gerber & Fritsch, 1995; Harr, 1999; Tracy,

Smith, & Steurer, 1998). Indeed, the 1995 International Correctional Educa-

tion Association Conference focused on the value of prison education as a

tool to reduce recidivism (Duguid, Hawkey, & Pawson, 1996). This article

examines the relationship between education and recidivism in Oklahoma.

Our findings are disturbing, suggesting that education may not always be

linked to reduced recidivism.

RECIDIVISM

One problem with the literature on correlates of recidivism is the inconsis-

tency in the measurement of recidivism (Jancic, 1998). Forexample, a report

THE PRISON JOURNAL, Vol.82 No. 3, September 2002 314-334

© 2002 Sage Publications

314

on federal releasees used rearrest or parole revocation as the measure of

recidivism (Harer,1995). The use of reincarceration as a recidivism measure

appears to be normative, however. A recent meta-analysis of 33 studies

reports four different recidivism measures: reincarceration, arrest after

release, new conviction, and parole revocation. In two-thirds of the cases,

recidivism was measure by reincarceration (D. B. Wilson, Gallagher, &

MacKenzie, 2000). Of course, the measure of recidivism chosen is affected

by the focus of the study. If one is interested in evidence of changed behav-

iors, rearrest might be the preferred measure. However,if the focus is on pro-

gram effectiveness in keeping individuals out of the correctional system,

reincarceration would be an effective measure (Stevens & Ward, 1997). In

this study,we have chosen reincarceration as our measure of recidivism. Our

interest is the degree to which educational programming in Oklahoma

increases the time offenders remain out of the system; thus, reincarceration

seems the most reasonable measure.

CORRECTIONAL EDUCATION AND RECIDIVISM

GENERAL EQUIVALENCYDIPLOMA (GED),

VOCATIONAL-TECHNICAL, AND RECIDIVISM

High incarceration rates and restricted budgets are leading policy makers

to assess the effectiveness of existingand proposed programs (Duguid et al.,

1996; Jancic, 1998; McCollum, 1977). The research findings, however, are

somewhat mixed. On one hand, we find evidencethat correctional education

is effective in reducing recidivism rates. For example, some research sug-

gests that exposure to educational programs is strongly linked to lower rates

of recidivism (Gerber & Fritsch, 1995; Harer, 1995; Jancic, 1998; Tracy

et al., 1998). Similarly, recidivismfor driving-while-impaired offenders was

24% among non–high school graduates but only 13% for those receiving

additional educational programming (Kernodle, Joyce, & Farmer,1995). On

the other hand, there is some evidence that some educational programs are

not as effectiveas desired in reducing recidivism. A 1974 study has left a tell-

ing legacy for correctional education and other rehabilitation programs. The

author asserted that in terms of reducing recidivism, “nothing works”

(Martinson, 1974). Although he later qualified his results (Martinson, 1979),

additional studies have suggested that his conclusions have some validity

(Chown & Davis, 1986; Davis,1985; Piehl, 1998). Other earlier research has

suggested that only extensive education was linked to reducing recidivism

(Schnur, 1948). Similarly, a 1966 study found that longer courses created

Brewster,Sharp / EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS AND RECIDIVISM 315