From Bars to Textbooks: Bringing Higher Education Behind Bars

Corrections literature maintains the profound utility of postsecondary education programs in reducing recidivism rates among ex-offenders (Anders & Noblit, 2011). Notwithstanding, financial restrictions often impede the abilities of correctional administrators to offer college-level courses. Alternative avenues for postsecondary correctional education are addressed and policy issues and recommendations provided. The appearance of steadily increasing crime rates over the past three decades has sparked public interest in the criminal justice and correctional systems (Erisman & Contardo, 2005). In turn, elected public officials, inspired by the misguided belief that delinquents and criminal deviants regularly engage in a series of increasingly violent crime sprees, have intensified their efforts to increase police presence, lengthen prison sentences, and allocate additional funds to crime prevention measures and punishment techniques (Seiter, 2011). As the legislative endeavors of said officials have prevailed, American taxpayers remain encumbered by the $30 billion annual debt required to support the nation’s vast corrections system (Erisman & Contardo, 2005; Seiter, 2011). The rapid construction of 300 state, federal, and private penal institutions over a 5-year period, June 2000 to December 2005 (Seiter, 2011), necessitates the continued development of cost-saving programs to deter criminal activity. One such alternative mandates the restoration and expansion of postsecondary academic curricula within correctional settings. Numerous studies have discerned inverse relationships between the completion of college courses and the resumption of criminal activity upon release from a correctional facility (Anders & Noblit, 2011; Batiuk, McKeever, & Wilcox, 2005;Dawkins & McAuliff, 2008; Erisman & Contardo, 2005; Esperian, 2010; Meyer, 2011; Seiter, 2011) and, accordingly, affirm the efficacy of postsecondary education opportunities in “reducing reoffending and improving public safety” (Esperian, 2010, p. 332). To demonstrate how access to higher education could reduce recidivism rates post-release, the author provides an overview of America’s correctional higher education programs, discusses policy implications of such programs, and presents recommendations for continued expansion of postsecondary educational programs within correctional settings. The History of Correctional Higher Education Programs Traditionally, the mission of correctional institutions entailed the implementation and enforcement of court-prescribed sanctions for offenders (Seiter, 2011). However, as correctional missions evolved and expanded, correctional objectives required administrators to safeguard members of society via the regular surveillance, control, and incapacitation of offenders during periods of incarceration as well as the constant supervision of the treatment and rehabilitation of those offenders preparing for release. In fulfillment of these responsibilities, correctional agencies provided an assortment of services designed to help “offenders become less likely or less motivated to return to a life of crime and more likely to become productive and law-abiding citizens” (Seiter, 2011, p. 6). Historically, prisoner access to higher education varied according to current public perception. During the early 20 th century, few prisoners participated in free print-based