U.S. Department of Education

NCES 2007–473

Literacy Behind Bars

Results From the 2003

National Assessment of

Adult Literacy Prison Survey

U.S. Department of Education

NCES 2007-473

Elizabeth Greenberg

Eric Dunleavy

Mark Kutner

American Institutes 

for Research

Sheida White

Project Officer

National Center for 

Education Statistics

Literacy Behind Bars

Results From the 2003

National Assessment of

Adult Literacy Prison Survey

May 2007
U.S. Department of Education

Margaret Spellings

Secretary

Institute of Education Sciences

Grover J. Whitehurst

Director

National Center for Education Statistics

Mark Schneider

Commissioner

The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) is the primary federal entity for collecting, analyzing, and reporting data

related to education in the United States and other nations. It fulfills a congressional mandate to collect, collate, analyze, and

report full and complete statistics on the condition of education in the United States; conduct and publish reports and specialized analyses of the meaning and significance of such statistics; assist state and local education agencies in improving

their statistical systems; and review and report on education activities in foreign countries.

NCES activities are designed to address high-priority education data needs; provide consistent, reliable, complete, and accurate indicators of education status and trends; and report timely, useful, and high-quality data to the U.S. Department of

Education, the Congress, the states, other education policymakers, practitioners, data users, and the general public. Unless

specifically noted, all information contained herein is in the public domain.

We strive to make our products available in a variety of formats and in language that is appropriate to a variety of audiences.

You, as our customer, are the best judge of our success in communicating information effectively. If you have any comments

or suggestions about this or any other NCES product or report, we would like to hear from you. Please direct your comments

to:

National Center for Education Statistics

Institute of Education Sciences

U.S. Department of Education

1990 K Street NW

Washington, DC 20006–5651

May 2007

The NCES World Wide Web Home Page address is http://nces.ed.gov.

The NCES World Wide Web Electronic Catalog is http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch.

Suggested Citation

Greenberg, E., Dunleavy, E., and Kutner, M. (2007). Literacy Behind Bars: Results From the 2003 National Assessment of Adult

Literacy Prison Survey (NCES 2007-473). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education

Statistics.

For ordering information on this report, write to:

U.S. Department of Education

ED Pubs

P.O. Box 1398

Jessup, MD 20794–1398

or call toll free 1–877–4ED–Pubs or order online at http://www.edpubs.org.

Content Contact

Sheida White

(202) 502-7473

sheida.white@ed.gov
Executive Summary

The 2003 National Assessment of Adult

Literacy (NAAL) assessed the English literacy of incarcerated adults for the first time

since 1992. The assessment was administered to

approximately 1,200 inmates (ages 16 and older) in

state and federal prisons, as well as to approximately

18,000 adults (ages 16 and older) living in households. The prison sample is representative of the

1,380,000 adults in prison and the household sample

is representative of the 221,020,000 adults in households in 2003.1 The 2003 adult literacy assessment

covered the same content as the 1992 National Adult

Literacy Survey, and both assessments used the same

definition of literacy:

Using printed and written information to function in society, to achieve one’s goals, and to

develop one’s knowledge and potential.

Unlike indirect measures of literacy, which rely on

self-reports and other subjective evaluations, the

assessment measured literacy directly through tasks

completed by adults.These tasks represent a range of

literacy activities that adults are likely to face in their

daily lives. Prison inmates were asked to complete

the same tasks as adults living in households.

iii

Literacy Levels

Changes in the Prison

Population and Prisoners'

Literacy Between 1992 and

2003

Comparing the Prison and

Household Populations 

Education and Job Training in

Prison 

Work and Literacy Experiences

in Prison 

Criminal History and Current

Offense

1Household data collection was conducted from March 2003 through

February 2004; prison data collection was conducted from March through

July 2004. Following the precedent set with the 1992 adult literacy assessment, for which data collection also extended into a second year and all

prison data collection was conducted during the second year (1993), this

assessment is referred to as the 2003 NAAL throughout this report.
Three types of literacy were measured by the assessment on 0- to 500-point scales:

1. Prose literacy.The knowledge and skills needed

to search, comprehend, and use information

from continuous texts. Prose examples include

editorials, news stories, brochures, and instructional materials.

2. Document literacy.The knowledge and skills needed to search, comprehend, and use information

from noncontinuous texts. Document examples

include job applications, payroll forms, transportation schedules,maps,tables,and drug or food labels.

3. Quantitative literacy. The knowledge and skills

needed to identify and perform computations

using numbers that are embedded in printed

materials. Examples include balancing a checkbook, computing a tip, completing an order

form, or determining the amount of interest on

a loan from an advertisement.

This report presents the findings from the 2003

prison adult literacy assessment.The report includes

analyses that compare the literacy of the U.S. prison

population in 2003 with the literacy of the U.S.

prison population in 1992. It also includes analyses

that compare the literacy of the prison and household populations in 2003.The analyses in this report

use standard t tests to determine statistical significance. Statistical significance is reported at p <.05.

Literacy Levels

The Committee on Performance Levels for Adult

Literacy, appointed by the National Research

Council’s Board on Testing and Assessment (BOTA),

recommended a set of performance levels for the

prose, document, and quantitative scales. Drawing on

their recommendations, the U.S. Department of

Education decided to report the assessment results by

using four literacy levels for these scales: Below Basic,

Basic, Intermediate, and Proficient.

Below Basic indicates that an adult has no more than the

most simple and concrete literacy skills. Basic indicates

that an adult has the skills necessary to perform simple

and everyday literacy activities. Intermediate indicates

that an adult has the skills necessary to perform moderately challenging literacy activities. Proficient indicates

that an adult has the skills necessary to perform more

complex and challenging literacy activities.

BOTA’s Committee on Performance Levels for Adult

Literacy also recommended reporting the 2003 results

by using a separate category: nonliterate in English.

Adults were considered to be nonliterate in English if

they were unable to complete a minimum number of

simple literacy questions or if they were unable to

communicate in English or Spanish.

Adults who were classified as nonliterate in English

because they could not complete a minimum number of simple literacy questions were generally able

to complete the background questionnaire, which

was administered orally in either English or Spanish;

for reporting purposes, they were included in the

Below Basic literacy level. Adults who were classified

as nonliterate in English because they were unable

to communicate in either English or Spanish could

not complete the background questionnaire; they

are not included in the analyses in this report, which

rely on background data. Adults who could not be

tested because of a cognitive or mental disability are

also not included in the analyses in this report, but

in the absence of any information about their literacy abilities, they are not considered to be nonliterate in English.

Changes in the Prison Population and

Prisoners’ Literacy Between 1992 and 2003

The rate of incarceration in federal and state prisons in

the United States increased from 332 per 100,000 in

1992 to 487 per 100,000 in 2003. (These figures do

not include jails.) The prison population was larger,

older, and somewhat better educated in 2003 than in

iv

Literacy Behind Bars
1992.The parents of prison inmates were also better

educated in 2003 than in 1992.

■ The average prose and quantitative literacy of

the prison population was higher in 2003 than

in 1992. In 2003, some 3 percent of the prison

population was considered to be nonliterate in

English (figure 2-1).2

■ Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy was higher for Black3 prison inmates in

2003 than in 1992, and average quantitative literacy increased for Hispanic4 inmates. In 2003,

White inmates had higher average prose, document, and quantitative literacy than Black and

Hispanic inmates. Black prison inmates had

higher average document literacy than Hispanic

inmates (figure 2-3).

■ In 2003, prison inmates’ average prose and quantitative literacy was higher with each increasing

level of education.For example,inmates with less

than a high school education had lower average

prose and quantitative literacy than inmates with

some high school (figure 2-5).

■ The average prose and quantitative literacy of

incarcerated men increased between 1992 and

2003 (figure 2-7).

■ Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy increased between 1992 and 2003 for

prison inmates in the 25 to 39 age group. In

2003, incarcerated adults who were 40 years old

or older had lower average prose and document

literacy than incarcerated adults who were 25 to

39 years old (figure 2-9).

■ Average prose and quantitative literacy

increased between 1992 and 2003 for prison

inmates who spoke only English before starting

school (figure 2-11).

Comparing the Prison and Household

Populations

In 2003, a higher percentage of prison inmates than

adults living in households were male, Black, and

Hispanic, and a higher percentage had been diagnosed with a learning disability. A lower percentage

of prison inmates than adults living in households

were ages 40 or older, and a lower percentage spoke

a language other than English as children.

■ Prison inmates had lower average prose, document, and quantitative literacy than adults living

in households (figure 3-1).

■ Incarcerated White adults had lower average

prose literacy than White adults living in households. Incarcerated Black and Hispanic adults

had higher average prose literacy than Black

and Hispanic adults in households (figure 3-3).

■ Black inmates who had been in prison for a

shorter period of time (incarcerated in 2002 or

later) had prose literacy that was not statistically significantly different from that of Black

adults living in households, whereas Black

inmates who had been incarcerated since before

2002 had higher average prose literacy than

Black adults living in households (figure 3-3

and table 3-3).5

■ In general, either prison inmates had lower

average prose, document, and quantitative literacy than adults living in households with the

same level of highest educational attainment or

there was no statistically significant difference

between the two groups. The exception was

that among adults without any high school

education, prison inmates had higher average

v

Executive Summary

2The design of the 1992 assessment did not allow the estimation of

the size of the population nonliterate in English.

3 Black includes African American.

4 All adults of Hispanic origin are classified as Hispanic, regardless of

race. Hispanic includes Latino.

5 The sample size for Hispanic inmates did not allow the separate

estimation of literacy by length of incarceration.
literacy on all three scales than adults living in

households (figure 3-5).

■ Both male and female prison inmates had lower

average literacy on all three scales than adults of

the same gender living in households (figure 3-9).

■ In every age group examined (16 to 24, 25 to

39, and 40 or older), incarcerated adults had

lower average prose, document, and quantitative

literacy than adults in the same age group living

in households (figure 3-11).

■ Among adults who spoke only English before

starting school, those who were incarcerated

had lower average prose, document, and quantitative literacy than those who lived in households (figure 3-13).

■ Among adults whose parents were high school

graduates or attained postsecondary education,

prison inmates had lower average prose, document, and quantitative literacy than those

adults who lived in households whose parents

had the same level of highest educational

attainment (figure 3-15).

Education and Job Training in Prison 

Educational and vocational training programs are an

important component of prisons’ rehabilitative purpose. In general, inmates who participated in prison

education and training programs had higher average

literacy than inmates who did not.

■ Forty-three percent of prison inmates had

obtained a high school diploma or a high

school equivalency certificate before the start

of their current incarceration.An additional 19

percent of prison inmates had earned their

high school equivalency certificate during

their current incarceration, and 5 percent were

enrolled in academic classes that might eventually lead to a high school equivalency certificate (figure 4-1).

■ Prison inmates with a high school diploma or a

high school equivalency certificate had higher

average prose,document,and quantitative literacy

than prison inmates with lower levels of education. Inmates who earned their high school

equivalency certificate during their current incarceration had higher average quantitative literacy

than prison inmates who entered prison with a

high school diploma or a high school equivalency certificate (figure 4-3).

■ Twenty-nine percent of prison inmates had

participated in some sort of vocational training.

However, more inmates reported being on

waiting lists for these programs than were

enrolled (figures 4-5 and 4-6).

■ Prison inmates who had participated in vocational training had higher average prose, document, and quantitative literacy than prison

inmates who had not participated in any sort of

vocational training program during their current incarceration (figure 4-9).

■ Prison inmates who had received either information technology (IT) certification or some

other type of certification recognized by a

licensing board or an industry or professional

association had higher average prose, document,

and quantitative literacy than prison inmates

who did not have the same type of certification.

However, prison inmates who had received

either type of certification had lower average

levels of prose, document, and quantitative literacy than adults in the household population

with similar certifications (figure 4-12).

Work and Literacy Experiences in Prison

The relationship between literacy and participation in

prison activities is complex.Inmates who enter prison

with higher literacy may be more likely to engage in

some activities, such as using the library and computers,reading,or even getting certain work assignments.

vi

Literacy Behind Bars
Participating in any of these activities may help

inmates improve their literacy. In general, there was a

relationship between literacy and participation in

activities in prison, such that inmates who participated in activities that required some reading or writing

had average literacy that was either higher than or not

measurably different from the average literacy of

inmates who did not participate in these activities.

■ In 2003, some 68 percent of prison inmates had

a work assignment. Prison inmates with work

assignments had higher average prose and quantitative literacy than inmates who did not have

work assignments (figure 5-1).

■ A higher percentage of inmates with Proficient

and Intermediate prose literacy than prison

inmates with Below Basic prose literacy had

prison work assignments that required writing

every day (figure 5-6).

■ A higher percentage of inmates with Basic,

Intermediate, and Proficient prose literacy than

with Below Basic prose literacy used the library.

Moreover, prison inmates who used the prison

library had higher average prose literacy than

prison inmates who never used the library (figure 5-9).

■ Prison inmates who used a computer for word

processing or for using a CD-ROM had higher average document and quantitative literacy

than inmates who never used a computer for

these things (figure 5-10).

■ A higher percentage of prison inmates with

Proficient than with Below Basic or Basic quantitative literacy used a spreadsheet program (figure 5-13).

■ Prison inmates who read newspapers and magazines, books, or letters and notes had higher

average prose and document literacy than prison

inmates who never read, regardless of the frequency with which they read. Additionally, a

higher percentage of inmates with Basic or

Intermediate than with Below Basic prose literacy

read newspapers and magazines, books, and letters and notes every day (figures 5-14 and 5-15).

Criminal History and Current Offense

On average, prison sentences were longer in 2003

than in 1992. In both 1992 and 2003, the commission of a violent crime was the most common reason

adults were incarcerated. There was a slight decline

between 1992 and 2003 in the percentage of inmates

who were imprisoned because of property crimes.

Literacy is perhaps of most concern for inmates who

are nearing their expected date of release because

they will need to find jobs outside of prison. In 2003,

some 62 percent of inmates expected to be released

within 2 years.

■ Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy was higher in 2003 than in 1992 for prison

inmates who expected to be incarcerated for 10

years or longer (figure 6-3).

■ In 2003,there were no statistically significant differences in average prose, document, and quantitative literacy between inmates who expected to

be released within the next 2 years and inmates

with longer amounts of time remaining on their

sentences.However,between 1992 and 2003,the

percentage of inmates who expected to be

released within the next 2 years and had Below

Basic prose and quantitative literacy did decrease

(figures 6-5 and 6-6).

■ In 2003, average prose and quantitative literacy

was higher among inmates who had previously been sentenced to both probation and incarceration, and average document literacy was

higher among inmates who had previously

been sentenced to probation only, than for

inmates with the same criminal histories in

1992 (figure 6-7).

vii

Executive Summary

Acknowledgments 

The National Assessment of Adult Literacy

(NAAL) is a complex project whose successful completion is due to the outstanding

work of countless individuals from many organizations. We at the American Institutes for Research

(AIR) are extremely grateful and appreciative for

having the opportunity to work with so many talented and dedicated individuals.We especially want

to thank the staff at the National Center for

Education Statistics who have supported the project, including Peggy Carr, Sheida White (NAAL

project officer), Andrew Kolstad, Steven Gorman,

William Tirre, and Arnold Goldstein.

We also appreciate the input we received from

report reviewers including Bruce Taylor of the

NCES Statistical Standards Program, and members

of the Education Statistics Services Institute staff:

Yung Chun, Jaleh Soroui, Linda Schaefer, Jing Chen

Matt Adams, Carianne Santagelo, Zeyu Xu, Steve

Hocker, and Steve Mistler.

John Linton, Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools,

U.S. Department of Education, and Caroline

Harlow, formerly with the Bureau of Justic

Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, played an

important role in the planning, design, and reporting of the NAAL prison study.They also served as

reviewers of this report. We are grateful for their

guidance and support.We also very much appreciate the support of the prison staff members and

inmates who advised us on the design of this study

ix
and made many suggestions for improving the background questionnaire.

Our colleagues at Westat, Inc.—including Martha

Berlin, Michelle Amsbary, Leyla Mohadjer, and

Jacquie Hogan—planned, developed, and implemented the sampling and weighting plan and also

planned and carried out the data collection.

Many staff members at AIR, in addition to the report

authors, made substantial contributions to the prison

literacy report. We would especially like to thank

Justin Baer, Eugene Johnson, Stephane Baldi, Ying

Jin, Heather Block, Holly Baker, Elizabeth Moore,

Rachel Greenberg, and Janan Musa.

Thousands of adults in both households and prisons

participated in the assessment. Their willingness to

spend time answering the background questions and

assessment items was essential to ensuring that meaningful data about the literacy of America’s adults

could be obtained.This study would not have been

possible without their participation.

x

Literacy Behind Bars
Contents

Page

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix

List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii

List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xviii

Chapter 1: Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Defining and Measuring Literacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Interpreting Literacy Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Conducting the Survey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Interpretation of Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Organization of the Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Chapter 2: Changes in the Prison Population and Prisoners’ Literacy 

between 1992 and 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Total Prison Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Race/Ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Highest Level of Educational Attainment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Language Spoken Before Starting School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Parents’ Highest Level of Educational Attainment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Chapter 3: Comparing the Prison and Household Populations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Total Prison and Household Populations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Race/Ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

xi

CONTENTS 
Page

Highest Level of Educational Attainment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Gender. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Age. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Language Spoken Before Starting School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Parents’ Highest Level of Educational Attainment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Chapter 4: Education and Job Training in Prison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47

Academic Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Vocational Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Skill Certification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Chapter 5: Work and Literacy Experiences in Prison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57

Prison Work Assignments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Library Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Computer Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Reading Frequency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Chapter 6: Criminal History and Current Offense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71

Type of Offense. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

Expected Length of Incarceration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Expected Date of Release . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

Previous Criminal History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81

Appendix A: Sample Assessment Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .83

Appendix B: Definitions of All Subpopulations and Background Variables Reported . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .93

Appendix C: Technical Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .99

Appendix D: Estimates and Standard Errors for Tables and Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .107

xii

Literacy Behind Bars
xiii

Contents

List of Tables

Table Page

1-1. Correlations among the prose, document, and quantitative scales for the prison population: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

1-2. Correlations among the prose, document, and quantitative scales for the household population: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

1-3. Overview of the literacy levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2-1. Percentage of the adult prison population in selected groups: 1992 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

3-1. Percentage of the adult prison and household populations in selected groups: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

3-2. Average prose literacy scores of the adult prison and household populations, by race/ethnicity and age: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . 31

3-3. Average prose literacy scores of the adult prison and household populations, by race/ethnicity and date incarcerated: 2003. . 31

3-4. Percentage of the Black and White adult prison and household populations in each prose, document, and quantitative 

literacy level, by highest educational attainment: 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

6-1. Percentage of the adult prison population in selected groups: 1992 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

C-1. Weighted and unweighted household response rate, by survey component: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

C-2. Weighted and unweighted prison response rate, by survey component: 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

D2-1. Estimates and standard errors for Table 2-1. Percentage of the adult prison population in selected groups: 1992 and 2003. . 108

D2-2. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 2-1. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult 

prison population: 1992 and 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

D2-3. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 2-2. Percentage of the adult prison population in each prose, document, and 

quantitative literacy level: 1992 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

D2-4. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 2-3. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult 

prison population, by race/ethnicity: 1992 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

D2-5. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 2-4. Percentage of the adult prison population in each prose, document, and

quantitative literacy level, by race/ethnicity: 1992 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

D2-6. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 2-5. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult 

prison population, by highest educational attainment: 1992 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

D2-7. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 2-6. Percentage of the adult prison population in each prose, document, and 

quantitative literacy level, by highest educational attainment: 1992 and 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

D2-8. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 2-7. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult 

prison population, by gender: 1992 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

D2-9. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 2-8. Percentage of the adult prison population in each prose, document, and 

quantitative literacy level, by gender: 1992 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

D2-10. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 2-9. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult 

prison population, by age: 1992 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

D2-11. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 2-10. Percentage of the adult prison population in each prose, document, and

quantitative literacy level, by age: 1992 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

D2-12. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 2-11. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult 

prison population, by language spoken before starting school: 1992 and 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
Table Page

D2-13. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 2-12. Percentage of the adult prison population in each prose, document, and

quantitative literacy level, by language spoken before starting school: 1992 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

D2-14. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 2-13. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult 

prison population, by parents’ highest educational attainment: 1992 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

D2-15. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 2-14. Percentage of the adult prison population in each prose, document, and

quantitative literacy level, by parents’ highest educational attainment: 1992 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

D3-1. Estimates and standard errors for Table 3-1. Percentage of the adult prison and household populations in selected 

groups: 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116

D3-2. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 3-1. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult 

prison and household populations: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

D3-3. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 3-2. Percentage of the adult prison and household populations in each prose,

document, and quantitative literacy level: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

D3-4. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 3-3. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult 

prison and household populations, by race/ethnicity: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

D3-5. Estimates and standard errors for Table 3-2. Average prose literacy scores of the adult prison and household 

populations, by race/ethnicity and age: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

D3-6. Estimates and standard errors for Table 3-3. Average prose literacy scores of the adult prison and household 

populations, by race/ethnicity and date incarcerated: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

D3-7. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 3-4. Percentage of the adult prison and household populations in each prose,

document, and quantitative literacy level, by race/ethnicity: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

D3-8. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 3-5. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult 

prison and household populations, by highest educational attainment: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

D3-9. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 3-6. Percentage of the adult prison and household populations in each prose,

document, and quantitative literacy level, by highest educational attainment: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

D3-10. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 3-7. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the White 

adult prison and household populations, by highest educational attainment: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

D3-11. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 3-8. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the Black 

adult prison and household populations, by highest educational attainment: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

D3-12. Estimates and standard errors for Table 3-4. Percentage of the Black and White adult prison and household 

populations in each prose, document, and quantitative literacy level, by highest educational attainment: 2003. . . . . . . . . 122

D3-13. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 3-9. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult 

prison and household populations, by gender: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

D3-14. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 3-10. Percentage of the adult prison and household populations in each prose,

document, and quantitative literacy level, by gender: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

D3-15. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 3-11. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult 

prison and household populations, by age: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

D3-16. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 3-12. Percentage of the adult prison and household populations in each 

prose, document, and quantitative literacy level, by age: 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124

xiv

Literacy Behind Bars
Table Page

D3-17. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 3-13. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult 

prison and household populations, by language spoken before starting school: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124

D3-18. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 3-14. Percentage of the adult prison and household populations in each 

prose, document, and quantitative literacy level, by language spoken before starting school: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

D3-19. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 3-15. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult 

prison and household populations, by parents’ highest educational attainment: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

D3-20. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 3-16. Percentage of the adult prison and household populations in each 

prose, document, and quantitative literacy level, by parents’ highest educational attainment: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

D4-1. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 4-1. Percentage of the adult prison population, by GED/high school diploma 

attainment: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

D4-2. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 4-2. Percentage of the adult prison population with a GED/high school 

equivalency certificate or high school diploma, by expected date of release: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

D4-3. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 4-3. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult 

prison population, by GED/high school diploma attainment: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

D4-4. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 4-4. Percentage of the adult prison population in each prose, document, and 

quantitative literacy level, by GED/high school diploma attainment: 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128

D4-5. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 4-5. Percentage of the adult prison population, by length of participation in 

vocational training programs: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128

D4-6. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 4-6. Percentage of the adult prison population, by enrollment in vocational 

training: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128

D4-7. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 4-7. Percentage of the adult prison population who participated in vocational

training during current incarceration, by expected date of release: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

D4-8. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 4-8. Percentage of the adult prison population participating in vocational 

training who received selected types of instruction as part of the vocational training, by type of instruction: 2003 . . . . . . 129

D4-9. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 4-9. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult 

prison population, by participation in vocational training: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

D4-10. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 4-10. Percentage of the adult prison population who participated in 

vocational training, by prose, document, and quantitative literacy level: 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130

D4-11. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 4-11. Percentage of the adult prison and household populations who have 

received skill certification: 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130

D4-12. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 4-12. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult 

prison and household populations, by receipt of information technology skill certification: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

D4-13. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 4-13. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult 

prison and household populations, by receipt of other job-related skill certification: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132

D4-14. Estimates and standard errors for Figures 4-14. and 4-15. Percentage of the adult prison and household populations in 

each prose, document, and quantitative literacy level, by receipt of information technology skill certification or other 

job-related skill certification: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

D5-1. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 5-1. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult 

prison population, by current prison work assignment: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134

xv

Contents
Table Page

D5-2. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 5-2. Percentage of the adult prison population who had a current prison 

work assignment, by prose, document, and quantitative literacy level: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134

D5-3. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 5-3. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult 

prison population, by frequency of reading as part of current prison work assignment: 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

D5-4. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 5-4. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult 

prison population, by frequency of writing as part of current prison work assignment: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

D5-5. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 5-5. Percentage of the adult prison population who read as part of current 

prison work assignment, by prose literacy level: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136

D5-6. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 5-6. Percentage of the adult prison population who wrote as part of current 

prison work assignment, by prose and document literacy level: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136

D5-7. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 5-7. Percentage of the adult prison population who attempted to use the 

prison library, by number of days it took to obtain access: 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

D5-8. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 5-8. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult 

prison population, by frequency of library use: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

D5-9. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 5-9. Percentage of the adult prison population who used the library, by prose 

literacy level: 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138

D5-10. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 5-10. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult 

prison population, by computer use for various tasks: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138

D5-11. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 5-11. Percentage of the adult prison population who wrote using a word 

processing program, by prose literacy level: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

D5-12. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 5-12. Percentage of the adult prison population who looked up information 

on a computer CD-ROM, by document literacy level: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

D5-13. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 5-13. Percentage of the adult prison population who used a computer 

spreadsheet program, by quantitative literacy level: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

D5-14. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 5-14. Percentage of the adult prison and household populations who read 

each of the following printed materials in English: newspapers or magazines, books, letters and notes, by frequency 

of reading: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140

D5-15. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 5-15. Average prose and document literacy scores of the adult prison 

population, by frequency of reading each of the following printed materials in English: newspapers or magazines,

books, letters and notes: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140

D5-16. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 5-16. Percentage of the adult prison population who read each of the 

following printed materials in English: newspapers or magazines, books, letters and notes, by prose literacy level: 2003 . . 141

D6-1. Estimates and standard errors for Table 6-1. Percentage of the adult prison population in selected groups: 1992 

and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142

D6-2. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 6-1. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult 

prison population, by type of offense: 1992 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143

D6-3. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 6-2. Percentage of the adult prison population in each prose, document, and 

quantitative literacy level, by type of offense: 1992 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143

xvi

Literacy Behind Bars
xvii

Contents

Table Page

D6-4. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 6-3. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult 

prison population, by expected length of incarceration: 1992 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144

D6-5. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 6-4. Percentage of the adult prison population in each prose, document, and 

quantitative literacy level, by expected length of incarceration: 1992 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144

D6-6. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 6-5. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult 

prison population, by expected date of release: 1992 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145

D6-7. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 6-6. Percentage of the adult prison population in each prose, document, and 

quantitative literacy level, by expected date of release: 1992 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145

D6-8. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 6-7. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult 

prison population, by previous criminal history: 1992 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146

D6-9. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 6-8. Percentage of the adult prison population in each prose, document, and 

quantitative literacy level, by previous criminal history: 1992 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
xviii

Literacy Behind Bars

List of Figures

Figure Page

1-1. Difficulty of selected prose literacy tasks: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

1-2. Difficulty of selected document literacy tasks: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

1-3. Difficulty of selected quantitative literacy tasks: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

2-1. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison population: 1992 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

2-2. Percentage of the adult prison population in each prose, document, and quantitative literacy level: 1992 and 2003 . . . . . . 13

2-3. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison population, by race/ethnicity: 1992 

and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

2-4. Percentage of the adult prison population in each prose, document, and quantitative literacy level, by race/ethnicity:

1992 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

2-5. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison population, by highest educational 

attainment: 1992 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

2-6. Percentage of the adult prison population in each prose, document, and quantitative literacy level, by highest 

educational attainment: 1992 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

2-7. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison population, by gender: 1992 and 2003. . . . . 18

2-8. Percentage of the adult prison population in each prose, document, and quantitative literacy level, by gender: 1992 

and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

2-9. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison population, by age: 1992 and 2003. . . . . . . . 20

2-10. Percentage of the adult prison population in each prose, document, and quantitative literacy level, by age: 1992 

and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

2-11. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison population, by language spoken before 

starting school: 1992 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

2-12. Percentage of the adult prison population in each prose, document, and quantitative literacy level, by language spoken

before starting school: 1992 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

2-13. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison population, by parents’ highest 

educational attainment: 1992 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

2-14. Percentage of the adult prison population in each prose, document, and quantitative literacy level, by parents’ highest 

educational attainment: 1992 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

3-1. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison and household populations: 2003 . . . . . . . . . 29

3-2. Percentage of the adult prison and household populations in each prose, document, and quantitative literacy level:

2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

3-3. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison and household populations, by 

race/ethnicity: 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

3-4. Percentage of the adult prison and household populations in each prose, document, and quantitative literacy level, by

race/ethnicity: 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

3-5. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison and household populations, by highest 

educational attainment: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Figure Page

3-6. Percentage of the adult prison and household populations in each prose, document, and quantitative literacy level,

by highest educational attainment: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

3-7. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the White adult prison and household populations,

by highest educational attainment: 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

3-8. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the Black adult prison and household populations,

by highest educational attainment: 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

3-9. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison and household populations, by gender:

2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

3-10. Percentage of the adult prison and household populations in each prose, document, and quantitative literacy level,

by gender: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

3-11. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison and household populations, by age: 2003 . . 39

3-12. Percentage of the adult prison and household populations in each prose, document, and quantitative literacy level,

by age: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

3-13. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison and household populations, by language 

spoken before starting school: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

3-14. Percentage of the adult prison and household populations in each prose, document, and quantitative literacy level,

by language spoken before starting school: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

3-15. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison and household populations, by parents’

highest educational attainment: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

3-16. Percentage of the adult prison and household populations in each prose, document, and quantitative literacy level,

by parents’ highest educational attainment: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

4-1. Percentage of the adult prison population, by GED/high school diploma attainment: 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

4-2. Percentage of the adult prison population with a GED/high school equivalency certificate or high school diploma, by 

expected date of release: 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

4-3. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison population, by GED/high school diploma

attainment: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

4-4. Percentage of the adult prison population in each prose, document, and quantitative literacy level, by GED/high school

diploma attainment: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

4-5. Percentage of the adult prison population, by length of participation in vocational training programs: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

4-6. Percentage of the adult prison population, by enrollment in vocational training: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

4-7. Percentage of the adult prison population who participated in vocational training during their current incarceration,

by expected date of release: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

4-8. Percentage of the adult prison population participating in vocational training who received selected types of instruction 

as part of the vocational training, by type of instruction: 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

4-9. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison population, by participation in vocational

training: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

4-10. Percentage of the adult prison population who participated in vocational training, by prose, document, and 

quantitative literacy level: 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

xix

Contents
Figure Page

4-11. Percentage of the adult prison and household populations who have received skill certification: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

4-12. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison and household populations, by receipt of

information technology skill certification: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

4-13. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison and household populations, by receipt 

of other job-related skill certification: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

4-14. Percentage of the adult prison and household populations in each quantitative literacy level, by receipt of information 

technology skill certification: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

4-15. Percentage of the adult prison and household populations in each quantitative literacy level, by receipt of other 

job-related skill certification: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

5-1. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison population, by current prison work 

assignment: 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

5-2. Percentage of the adult prison population who had a current prison work assignment, by prose, document, and 

quantitative literacy level: 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

5-3. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison population, by frequency of reading as 

part of current prison work assignment: 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

5-4. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison population, by frequency of writing as 

part of current prison work assignment: 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

5-5. Percentage of the adult prison population who read as part of current prison work assignment, by prose literacy level:

2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

5-6. Percentage of the adult prison population who wrote as part of current prison work assignment, by prose and 

document literacy level: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

5-7. Percentage of the adult prison population who attempted to use the prison library, by number of days it took to obtain

access: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

5-8. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison population, by frequency of library use:

2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

5-9. Percentage of the adult prison population who used the library, by prose literacy level: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

5-10. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison population, by computer use for various 

tasks: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

5-11. Percentage of the adult prison population who wrote using a word processing program, by prose literacy level: 2003 . . . . 65

5-12. Percentage of the adult prison population who looked up information on a computer CD-ROM, by document literacy 

level: 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

5-13. Percentage of the adult prison population who used a computer spreadsheet program, by quantitative literacy level:

2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

5-14. Percentage of the adult prison and household populations who read each of the following printed materials in English:

newspapers or magazines, books, letters and notes, by frequency of reading: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

5-15. Average prose and document literacy scores of the adult prison population, by frequency of reading each of the 

following printed materials in English: newspapers or magazines, books, letters and notes: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

xx

Literacy Behind Bars
Figure Page

5-16. Percentage of the adult prison population who read each of the following printed materials in English: newspapers or 

magazines, books, letters and notes, by prose literacy level: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

6-1. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison population, by type of offense: 1992 

and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

6-2. Percentage of the adult prison population in each prose, document, and quantitative literacy level, by type of offense:

1992 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

6-3. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison population, by expected length of 

incarceration: 1992 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

6-4. Percentage of the adult prison population in each prose, document, and quantitative literacy level, by expected length 

of incarceration: 1992 and 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

6-5. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison population, by expected date of release:

1992 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

6-6. Percentage of the adult prison population in each prose, document, and quantitative literacy level, by expected date of

release: 1992 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

6-7. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison population, by previous criminal history:

1992 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

6-8. Percentage of the adult prison population in each prose literacy level, by previous criminal history: 1992 and 2003 . . . . . . 80

xxi

Contents

Introduction

The skills and credentials that are acquired

through formal education are important

tools for navigating everyday life in the

United States. Adults with low levels of education

and literacy are more likely than adults with high

education and literacy levels to be unemployed or

to have incomes that put them below the poverty

level (Kutner et al. 2007). Adults who have not

obtained a high school diploma or any postsecondary education are also more likely to be incarcerated than adults with higher levels of education

(Harlow 2003).

The 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy

assessed the English literacy of incarcerated adults

in the United States for the first time since 1992.

The assessment was administered to approximately

1,200 inmates in state and federal prisons, as well as

to approximately 18,000 adults living in households.The original motivation for the prison sample was to ensure the assessment was representative

of the entire population of the United States. For

the population estimates presented in other reports,

the prison and household samples are combined or

results are reported for the household population

only.This report presents findings separately for the

prison adult literacy assessment.The report presents

analyses that compare the literacy of the U.S. prison

population in 2003 with the literacy of the prison

population in 1992. It also presents analyses that

compare the literacy of the prison and household

populations.

1

Defining and Measuring

Literacy 

Interpreting Literacy Results

Conducting the Survey

Interpretation of Results

Organization of the Report

CHAPTER ONE

1
Defining and Measuring Literacy 

Defining Literacy

Unlike indirect measures of literacy—which rely on

self-reports and other subjective evaluations of literacy and education—the 1992 and 2003 adult literacy assessments measured literacy directly by tasks

representing a range of literacy activities that adults

are likely to face in their daily lives.

The literacy tasks in the assessment were drawn from

actual texts and documents, which were either used

in their original format or reproduced in the assessment booklets. Each question appeared before the

materials needed to answer it, thus encouraging

respondents to read with purpose.

Respondents could correctly answer many assessment questions by skimming the text or document

for the information necessary to perform a given literacy task.All tasks were open-ended.

The 2003 adult literacy assessment covered the same

content of the 1992 assessment, and both assessments

used the same definition of literacy:

Using printed and written information to function in society, to achieve one’s goals, and to

develop one’s knowledge and potential.

The definition implies that literacy goes beyond simply

decoding and comprehending text.A central feature of

the definition is that literacy is related to achieving an

objective and adults often read for a purpose.

Measuring Literacy

As in 1992, three literacy scales—prose literacy, document literacy, and quantitative literacy—were used

in the 2003 assessment:

■ Prose literacy.The knowledge and skills needed to

perform prose tasks (i.e., to search, comprehend,

and use information from continuous texts).

Prose examples include editorials, news stories,

brochures, and instructional materials. Prose

texts can be further broken down as expository,

narrative, procedural, or persuasive.

■ Document literacy. The knowledge and skills

needed to perform document tasks (i.e., to

search, comprehend, and use information from

noncontinuous texts in various formats).

Document examples include job applications,

payroll forms, transportation schedules, maps,

tables, and drug or food labels.

■ Quantitative literacy. The knowledge and skills

required to perform quantitative tasks (i.e., to

identify and perform computations, either

alone or sequentially, using numbers embedded

in printed materials). Examples include balancing a checkbook, figuring out a tip, completing

an order form, or determining the amount of

interest on a loan from an advertisement.

Table 1-1 shows the correlations among the prose,

document, and quantitative scales for the prison population in 2003, and table 1-2 shows the same correlations for the household population in 2003.All the

correlations for the prison population are between

.78 and .87; all the correlations for the household

population are between .86 and .89. In chapter 12 of

the Technical Report and Data File User’s Manual for the

1992 National Adult Literacy Survey, Rock and

2

Literacy Behind Bars

Table 1-1. Correlations among the prose, document,

and quantitative scales for the prison

population: 2003

Prose Document Quantitative

Prose 1.0 .83 .78

Document .83 1.0 .87

Quantitative .78 .87 1.0

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for

Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.
Yamamoto (2001) examined the correlations among

the three scales and concluded that even though the

scales were highly related, there were still group differences across the scales, indicating that the scales

did not all measure the same construct.

Additional information on the construction of the

literacy scales is presented in Kutner et al. (2007).

Background Questionnaire

The 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy

prison background questionnaire was used to collect

demographic data on inmates and to provide contextual data on their experiences in prison that were

related to literacy, including participation in classes,

job training, and prison work assignments.A primary

goal of the assessment was to measure literacy trends

between 1992 and 2003, so many of the questions on

the 2003 background questionnaire were identical to

questions on the 1992 background questionnaire.

The 2003 background questionnaire also included

some new questions that were added in response to

input from stakeholders and users of the 1992 data.

A separate background questionnaire was developed for

the household study.The demographic questions were

identical on the prison and household questionnaires.

Interpreting Literacy Results

The Committee on Performance Levels for Adult

Literacy, appointed by National Research Council’s

Board on Testing and Assessment (BOTA), recommended a set of performance levels for the 2003

assessment (Hauser et al. 2005). Drawing on their

recommendations, the U.S. Department of

Education decided to report the assessment results

using four literacy levels for each scale. Table 1-3

summarizes the knowledge, skills, and capabilities

that adults needed to demonstrate to be classified

into one of the four levels. Figures 1-1, 1-2, and 1-3

show the types of tasks that map the different levels

on the prose, document, and quantitative scales.

These levels are different from the levels used in

1992.The 1992 data were reanalyzed using the new

levels, and those results are included in this report.

BOTA’s Committee on Performance Levels for

Adult Literacy also recommended reporting the

2003 results by using a separate category: nonliterate

in English.Adults were considered to be nonliterate

in English if they were unable to complete a minimum number of simple literacy questions or if they

were unable to communicate in English or Spanish.

Adults who were classified as nonliterate in English

because they could not complete a minimum number of simple literacy questions were generally able

to complete the background questionnaire, which

was administered orally in either English or Spanish;

for reporting purposes, they were included in the

Below Basic literacy level. Adults who were classified

as nonliterate in English because they were unable

to communicate in either English or Spanish could

not complete the background questionnaire; they

are not included in the analyses in this report that

rely on background data. Adults who could not be

tested because of a cognitive or mental disability are

also not included in the analyses in this report, but

in the absence of any information about their literacy abilities, they are not considered to be nonliterate in English.

3

Chapter 1: Introduction

Table 1-2. Correlations among the prose, document,

and quantitative scales for the household

population: 2003

Prose Document Quantitative

Prose 1.0 .86 .88

Document .86 1.0 .89

Quantitative .88 .89 1.0

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for

Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.
Conducting the Survey6

The 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy

included two samples: (1) adults ages 16 and older

living in households and (2) inmates ages 16 and

older in federal and state prisons. The household

sample is representative of the 21,020,000 adults in

households, and the prison sample is representative of

the 1,380,000 adults in prison in 2003.The sampling

frame for households was based on the 2000 Census

and the sampling frame for prisons was a list of all

federal and state prisons provided by the Bureau of

Justice Statistics. Each sample was weighted to represent its share of the total population of the United

States. Household data collection was conducted

from March 2003 through February 2004; prison

data collection was conducted from March through

July 2004.Throughout this report, the 2003–04 survey is referred to as the 2003 survey to simplify the

4

Literacy Behind Bars

Table 1-3. Overview of the literacy levels

Level and definition Key abilities associated with level

Below Basic indicates no more than the

most simple and concrete literacy skills.

Score ranges for Below Basic:

Prose: 0–209

Document: 0–204

Quantitative: 0–234

Basic indicates skills necessary to perform

simple and everyday literacy activities.

Score ranges for Basic:

Prose: 210–264

Document: 205–249

Quantitative: 235–289

Intermediate indicates skills necessary to

perform moderately challenging literacy

activities.

Score ranges for Intermediate:

Prose: 265–339

Document: 250–334

Quantitative: 290–349

Proficient indicates skills necessary to perform more complex and challenging literacy

activities.

Score ranges for Proficient:

Prose: 340–500

Document: 335–500

Quantitative: 350–500

Adults at the Below Basic level range from being nonliterate in English to having

the abilities listed below:

■ locating easily identifiable information in short, commonplace prose texts

■ locating easily identifiable information and following written instructions in

simple documents (e.g., charts or forms) 

■ locating numbers and using them to perform simple quantitative operations

(primarily addition) when the mathematical information is very concrete and

familiar

■ reading and understanding information in short, commonplace prose texts

■ reading and understanding information in simple documents

■ locating easily identifiable quantitative information and using it to solve simple, one-step problems when the arithmetic operation is specified or easily

inferred

■ reading and understanding moderately dense, less commonplace prose texts

as well as summarizing, making simple inferences, determining cause and

effect, and recognizing the author’s purpose 

■ locating information in dense, complex documents and making simple inferences about the information

■ locating less familiar quantitative information and using it to solve problems

when the arithmetic operation is not specified or easily inferred

■ reading lengthy, complex, abstract prose texts as well as synthesizing information and making complex inferences 

■ integrating, synthesizing, and analyzing multiple pieces of information located

in complex documents

■ locating more abstract quantitative information and using it to solve multistep problems when the arithmetic operations are not easily inferred and the

problems are more complex 

NOTE: Although the literacy levels share common names with the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) levels, they do not correspond to the NAEP levels.

SOURCE: Hauser, R.M, Edley, C.F. Jr., Koenig, J.A., and Elliott, S.W. (Eds.). (2005).Measuring Literacy: Performance Levels for Adults, Interim Report.Washington, DC: National Academies Press; White, S. and Dillow, S.

(2005).Key Concepts and Features of the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NCES 2006-471). U.S. Department of Education.Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

6Nonresponse bias analyses are discussed on page 102 of this report.

All percentages in this section are weighted. For unweighted percentages, see tables C-1 and C-2 in appendix C.
presentation, and the 1992–93 survey is referred to as

the 1992 survey. Literacy changes very slowly among

adults, so we would not expect to find significant difference between 2003 and 2004.7

For the prison sample, 97 percent (weighted) of prisons that were selected for the study agreed to participate, and the background questionnaire response

rate among prison inmates was 91 percent (weighted).The final prison sample response rate was 88 percent (weighted). For the household sample, the

screener response rate was 82 percent (weighted) and

5

Chapter 1: Introduction

Figure 1-1. Difficulty of selected prose literacy tasks: 2003

Proficient 

340–500 

Intermediate

265–339

Basic

210–264

Below Basic

0–209

Prose literacy scale 

0 

150 

200 

450 

250 

300 

400 

350 

500 

361 Evaluate information to determine which legal document is applicable to a specific healthcare situation. 

403 Find the information required to define a medical term by searching through a complex document. 

409 Infer the purpose of an event described in a magazine article. 

332 Compare two different systems of government, using information in a complex text that is not organized with section headers or other 

organizing devices. 

331 List two facts from a business magazine article that explain why a marketer quoted in the article has a particular opinion.

266 Explain why the author of a first-person narrative chose a particular activity instead of an alternative activity. 

254 Find information in a pamphlet for prospective jurors that explains how citizens were selected for the jury pool. 

199 Find information in a short, simple prose passage. 

345 Compare viewpoints in two editorials with contrasting interpretations of scientific and economic evidence. 

304 Infer the meaning of a metaphor in a poem. 

245 Find information in a newspaper article that explains how students who participate in a school program benefit from the program. 

190 Determine how long an event lasted, based on information in a short newspaper article. 

345 Compare and contrast the meaning of metaphors in a poem. 

284 Summarize the work experience required for a specific job, based on information in a newspaper job advertisement. 

241 Explain the meaning of a metaphor used in a narrative. 

213 Find, in a long narrative passage, the name of the person who performed a particular action. 

183 Identify how often a person should have a specified medical test, based on information in a clearly written pamphlet. 

161 Identify what it is permissible to drink before a medical test, based on a short set of instructions. 

NOTE:The position of a question on the scale represents the average scale score attained by adults who had a 67 percent probability of successfully answering the question. Only selected questions are presented.

Scale score ranges for performance levels are referenced on the figure.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

7 The 1992 adult literacy prison data collection took place in 1993,

but results for that survey have been reported using the date of 1992.
the background questionnaire response rate was 

76 percent (weighted). The final household sample

response rate was 62 percent (weighted).

Prison interviews usually took place in a classroom or

library in the prison; household interviews were conducted in respondents’ homes. Whenever possible,

interviewers administered the background questionnaire and assessment in a private setting. Assessments

were administered one-on-one using a computerassisted personal interviewing system (CAPI) programmed into laptop computers. Respondents were

encouraged to use whatever aids they normally used

Literacy Behind Bars

Figure 1-2. Difficulty of selected document literacy tasks: 2003

Proficient 

335–500 

Intermediate

250–334

Basic

205–249

Below Basic

0–204

Document literacy scale 

0 

150 

100 

200 

250 

300 

400 

350 

500 

228 Determine and categorize a person’s body mass index (BMI) given the person’s height and weight, a graph that can be used to

determine BMI based on height and weight, and a table that categorizes BMI ranges. 

206 Locate the intersection of two streets on a clearly labeled map. 

249 Summarize what the articles in a specified section of a magazine are about, using information in the magazine’s table of contents. 

239 Find a table in an almanac with information on a specified topic. 

191 Find the phone number to call to get directions to a job fair, based on information presented in a newspaper job advertisement. 

158 Find the percentage of a market a particular retailer had in 1992, based on information presented in a bar graph. 

117 Circle the date of a medical appointment on a hospital appointment slip. 

355 Apply information given in a text to graph a trend. 

372 Contrast financial information presented in a table regarding the differences between various types of credit cards. 

388 Interpret survey data presented in a nested table. 

297 Find the age range during which children should received a particular vaccine, using a chart that shows all the childhood vaccines and 

the ages children should receive them. 

280 Follow directions, using a clearly labeled map. 

269 Find the time a television program ends, using a newspaper television schedule that lists similar programs showing at different times 

on different channels. 

261 Enter product numbers for office supplies on an order form, using information from a page in an office supplies catalog. 

NOTE:The position of a question on the scale represents the average scale score attained by adults who had a 67 percent probability of successfully answering the question. Only selected questions are presented.

Scale score ranges for performance levels are referenced on the figure.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

6
when reading and performing quantitative tasks,including eyeglasses,magnifying glasses,rulers,and calculators.

The interviewers provided calculators to respondents

who wanted to use one and did not have their own.

Chapter 1: Introduction

7

Figure 1-3. Difficulty of selected quantitative literacy tasks: 2003

Proficient 

350 –500 

Intermediate

290–349

Basic

235–289

Below Basic

0–234

Quantitative literacy scale 

0 

175 

125 

225 

275 

325 

475 

375 

425 

500 

237 Calculate the cost of a sandwich and salad, using prices from a menu. 

232 Compare two prices by identifying the appropriate numbers and subtracting. 

257 Calculate the weekly salary for a job, based on hourly wages listed in a job advertisement. 

245 Locate two numbers in a bar graph and calculate the difference between them. 

217 Calculate the price difference between two appliances, using information in a table that includes price and other information about the 

appliances. 

178 Calculate the change from a $20 bill after paying the amount on a receipt. 

138 Add two numbers to complete an ATM deposit slip. 

356 Calculate the yearly cost of a specified amount of life insurance, using a table that gives cost by month for each $1,000 of coverage. 

291 Determine what time a person can take a prescription medication, based on information on the prescription drug label that relates 

timing of medication to eating. 

309 Determine whether a car has enough gasoline to get to the next gas station, based on a graphic of the car’s fuel gauge, a sign stating the miles to the next gas station, and information given in the question about the car’s fuel use. 

328 Calculate the cost of raising a child for a year in a family with a specified income, based on a newspaper article that provides the 

percentage of a typical family’s budget that goes toward raising children. 

404 Determine the number of units of flooring required to cover the floor in a room, when the area of the room is not evenly divisible by the units in which the flooring is sold. 

470 Calculate an employee's share of health insurance costs for a year, using a table that shows how the employee's monthly cost varies 

with income and family size. 

284 Perform a two-step calculation to find the cost of three baseball tickets, using an order form that gives the price of one ticket and the 

postage and handling charge. 

301 Calculate the total cost of ordering office supplies, using a page from an office supplies catalog and an order form. 

NOTE:The position of a question on the scale represents the average scale score attained by adults who had a 67 percent probability of successfully answering the question. Only selected questions are presented.

Scale score ranges for performance levels are referenced on the figure.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.
One percent of adults in the prison sample and 3

percent of adults in the household sample were

unable to participate in the assessment because they

could not communicate in either English or Spanish

or because they had a mental disability that prevented them from being tested. Literacy scores for these

adults could not be estimated, and they are not

included in the results presented in this report.

Additional information on sampling, response rates,

and data collection procedures is in appendix C.

Interpretation of Results

The adult literacy scales make it possible to examine

relationships between adults’ literacy and various selfreported background factors. However, a relationship

that exists between literacy and another variable does

not reveal its underlying cause, which may be influenced by a number of other variables. Similarly, the

assessment does not reflect the influence of unmeasured variables.The results are most useful when they

are considered in combination with other knowledge about the adult population and literacy levels in

the United States, such as trends in population

demographics and societal demands and expectations. Some of the changes in population demographics are discussed in chapter 2 of this report.

The statistics presented in this report are estimates of

performance based on a sample of respondents,

rather than the values that could be calculated if

every person in the nation answered every question

on the assessment. Estimates of performance of the

population and groups within the population were

calculated by using sampling weights to account for

the fact that the probabilities of selection were not

identical for all respondents. Information about the

uncertainty of each statistic that takes into account

the complex sample design was estimated by using

Taylor series procedures to estimate standard errors

(Binder 1983).

The analyses in this report examine differences related to literacy based on self-reported background

characteristics among groups in 2003, as well as

changes within groups between 1992 and 2003, by

using standard t tests to determine statistical significance. Statistical significance is reported at p < .05.

Differences between averages or percentages that are

statistically significant are discussed by using comparative terms such as higher or lower. Differences that are

not statistically significant either are not discussed or

are referred to as “not statistically significant.”

Because the sample size was small for some groups in

the prison population, such as women and Hispanics,

standard errors were larger for estimates relating to

those groups and differences that look large were not

necessarily statistically significant.The fact that a difference was not statistically significant does not necessarily mean there was no difference. Rather, it

means we cannot be 95 percent certain that the differences we see in the sample would hold for the

population as a whole.

For most of the analyses in this report, results are presented for all three scales:prose,document,and quantitative. However, for some of the analyses for which

one or two of the scales were more conceptually

related to the background variable being discussed

than were others, results are presented for a subset of

the scales only.

Detailed tables with estimates and standard errors for

all tables and figures in this report are in appendix D.

Appendix C includes more information about the

weights used for the sample and the procedures used

to estimate standard errors and statistical significance.

Organization of the Report

Chapter 2 of the report presents the prose, document,

and quantitative literacy of the prison population of

the United States as a whole and discusses how the

8

Literacy Behind Bars
literacy of the prison population changed between

1992 and 2003.The chapter also examines how literacy varies across groups of prison inmates with different characteristics, including race/ethnicity, gender,

educational attainment, age, language spoken before

starting school, and parents’ educational attainment.

Chapter 3 compares the literacy of adults in the

prison and household populations in 2003. In addition to comparing the populations as a whole, the

chapter examines how literacy differs between adults

in the prison and household populations in groups

with selected characteristics, including race/ethnicity, gender, educational attainment, age, language spoken before starting school, and parents’ educational

attainment.

Chapter 4 examines the relationship between literacy and education and job training, including traditional academic education, vocational education, and

skill certification.

Chapter 5 discusses the relationship between literacy

and experiences in prison other than education.

Topics in chapter 5 are prison work assignments,

library use, computer use, and reading frequency.

Chapter 6 looks at the relationship between literacy,

criminal history, and current offense.The results presented in chapter 6 compare how the relationship

between literacy, type of offense, expected length of

incarceration, expected date of release, and previous

criminal history has changed since 1992.

9

Chapter 1: Introduction

Changes in the Prison Population 

and Prisoners’ Literacy Between 

1992 and 2003

Approximately 1.4 million adults were incarcerated in state or federal prisons in 2003,

half a million more than were incarcerated

in prisons 10 years earlier, an increase of approximately 55 percent (Glaze and Palla 2005; Snell

1995). The incarceration rate per 100,000 population increased from 332 in 1992 to 487 in 2003

(Bureau of Justice Statistics 1997;Harrison and Beck

2005). In addition to being larger, the prison population was somewhat older in 2003 than in 1992: in

2003, some 32 percent of prison inmates were age

40 or older, compared with 19 percent in 1992

(table 2-1). A lower percentage of prison inmates

ended their education before completing high

school in 2003 than in 1992. In 2003, some 9 percent of prison inmates dropped out of school before

starting high school and 28 percent started high

school but did not obtain a diploma or a General

Educational Development (GED) credential/high

school equivalency certificate, compared with 13

percent and 36 percent, respectively, in 1992. The

parents of prison inmates were also better educated

in 2003 than in 1992. In 2003, some 33 percent of

prison inmates had parents who had completed at

least some postsecondary education, compared with

25 percent in 1992.

11

Total Prison Population

Race/Ethnicity

Highest Level of Educational

Attainment

Gender

Age

Language Spoken Before

Starting School

Parents’ Highest Level of

Educational Attainment

Summary

CHAPTER TWO

2
The analyses in this chapter examine how the literacy levels of prison inmates changed between 1992

and 2003.The chapter starts with an examination of

the change in literacy between 1992 and 2003

among the entire prison population. Because the

2003 prison population is larger than the prison population in 1992 and is different in terms of age and

educational background, just looking at differences

in literacy among all prison inmates can obscure

important changes within different groups in the

prison population. Therefore, the majority of the

chapter is focused on analyses that examine the literacy of different groups within the prison population

characterized by demographic category, educational

attainment, and language background.

When interpreting the results presented in this chapter, it is important to remember that the population

of prison inmates changes every year because some

people are released after serving their sentences and

other people are newly incarcerated. This is not a

longitudinal study. Therefore, it is not possible to

track the performance of individual prison inmates

over time by using the results of this study. If the

results presented in this chapter show that average literacy changed between 1992 and 2003 among a particular group of prison inmates, it should not be

interpreted as meaning that the literacy of adults who

were incarcerated in 1992 changed.8

12

Literacy Behind Bars

Table 2-1. Percentage of the adult prison population in selected groups: 1992 and 2003

Characteristic 1992 2003

Race/ethnicity

White 35 32

Black 45 46

Hispanic 16 18

Other 3 5

Gender

Male 94 94

Female 6 6

Highest educational attainment

Less than high school 13 9*

Some high school 36 28*

GED/high school equivalency 17 28*

High school graduate 14 13

Postsecondary 20 22

Age

16–24 23 16*

25–39 58 52*

40+ 19 32*

Language spoken before starting school

English only 85 85

English and other 6 6

Other only 9 9

Parents’ highest educational attainment

Less than high school 19 13*

Some high school 16 13

GED/high school equivalency/

high school graduate 39 41

Postsecondary 25 33*

*Significantly different from 1992.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Adults are defined as people 16 years of

age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or

cognitive or mental disabilities (3 percent in 1992 and 1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this

table. In 1992, respondents were allowed to identify only one race but could identify “other” as their

race. In 2003, respondents were allowed to identify multiple races but could not choose “other” as

their race.The “Other” category includes Asians, Pacific Islanders, Native Hawaiians, American

Indians, and Alaska Natives. In 2003, the “Other” category also includes adults who said they were

multi-racial; in 1992, it also includes adults who chose “other” as their race. All adults of Hispanic

origin are classified as Hispanic, regardless of race. Black includes African American, and Hispanic

includes Latino. Postsecondary includes any education beyond high school.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for

Education Statistics, 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey and 2003 National Assessment of Adult

Literacy.

8 The study design did not permit the separate examination of the

literacy of inmates who were incarcerated for the entire 11-year

time period between the 1992 and 2003 assessments.
Total Prison Population

The average prose and quantitative literacy of the

prison population was higher in 2003 than in 1992

(figure 2-1). On all three scales, a lower percentage of

prison inmates had Below Basic literacy and a higher

percentage of prison inmates had Intermediate literacy

in 2003 than in 1992 (figure 2-2). Because of the

increase in the size of the prison population, the

number of prison inmates with Below Basic prose literacy was approximately 200,000 in both years,

despite the decline in the percentage of incarcerated

adults with Below Basic prose literacy from 22 to 16

percent.

Nonliterate in English

In 2003, 3 percent of the prison population (42,000

adults) was considered to be nonliterate in English

either because the inmates did poorly on the easiest

test questions or because language barriers kept them

from taking the test.9

13

Chapter 2: Changes in the Prison Population and Prisoners’ Literacy between 1992 and 2003

Figure 2-1. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison

population: 1992 and 2003

248

257*

243 249

234

249*

1992 2003

0 

150 

200 

250 

Average score 

300 

350 

500 

Prose Document Quantitative

Literacy scale

*Significantly different from 1992.

NOTE: Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not

be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (3 percent in 1992 and 1

percent in 2003) are excluded from this figure.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for

Education Statistics, 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey and 2003 National Assessment of Adult

Literacy.

Figure 2-2. Percentage of the adult prison population in each prose, document, and quantitative literacy level: 1992 and 2003

2003 

1992 

22

16* 40 41* 3

22 33 42 3

15* 35 48* 2

50 32 16 3

2003 39* 39* 20* 2

1992 

2003 

1992 

Quantitative

Document

Prose

80 40 20 60 0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent Below Basic Percent Basic and above 

Literacy scale 

and year 

40 35 3

Below Basic Basic Intermediate Proficient

*Significantly different from 1992.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Adults are defined as people 16 years of

age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or

cognitive or mental disabilities (3 percent in 1992 and 1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this

figure.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for

Education Statistics, 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey and 2003 National Assessment of Adult

Literacy.

9The design of the 1992 assessment did not allow the estimation of

the size of the nonliterate-in-English population.
Race/Ethnicity

Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy

increased for Black prison inmates between 1992 and

2003 (figure 2-3). Average quantitative literacy also

increased for Hispanic inmates.There were no statistically significant changes in average literacy on any

of the three scales for White prison inmates.The gap

in document literacy scores between White and

Black inmates was smaller in 2003 than in 1992.

Between 1992 and 2003, the percentage of Black

prison inmates with Below Basic literacy declined

from 25 to 15 percent on the prose scale, from 28 to

19 percent on the document scale, and from 63 to 49

percent on the quantitative scale (figure 2-4).A lower

percentage of Hispanic prison inmates had Below

Basic document and quantitative literacy in 2003

than in 1992: 36 percent had Below Basic document

literacy and 64 percent had Below Basic quantitative

literacy in 1992, compared with 23 percent and 53

percent in 2003, respectively (figure 2-4).Adults with

Below Basic literacy can do no more than the most

simple literacy activities.

A comparison across racial/ethnic groups in 2003

shows that White prison inmates had higher average

prose, document, and quantitative literacy than Black

and Hispanic inmates (figure 2-3). Black prison

inmates had higher average document literacy than

Hispanic inmates.

14

Literacy Behind Bars

Figure 2-3. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison population, by

race/ethnicity: 1992 and 2003

White Black Hispanic Other White Black Hispanic Other White Black Hispanic Other

267 274

241

252*

224 232

248

262 268 265

229

240*

224

236

256 255

266

274

216

237*

212

231*

251 254

1992 2003

Prose Document Quantitative

0 

150 

200 

250 

Average score 

300 

350 

500 

Race/ethnicity

*Significantly different from 1992.

NOTE: Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (3 percent in 1992 and 1 percent in

2003) are excluded from this figure. In 1992, respondents were allowed to identify only one race but could identify “other” as their race. In 2003, respondents were allowed to identify multiple races but could not

choose “other” as their race.The “Other” category includes Asians, Pacific Islanders, Native Hawaiians, American Indians, and Alaska Natives. In 2003, the “Other” category also includes adults who said they were

multi-racial; in 1992, it also includes adults who chose “other” as their race. All adults of Hispanic origin are classified as Hispanic, regardless of race. Black includes African American, and Hispanic includes Latino.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey and 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.
15

Chapter 2: Changes in the Prison Population and Prisoners’ Literacy between 1992 and 2003

Figure 2-4. Percentage of the adult prison population in each prose, document, and quantitative literacy level,

by race/ethnicity: 1992 and 2003

11

6

28

19*

36

23*

13

14

24 57 8

27 64 3*

41 31

40 40 1

31 31 2

36 39 2

33 48 6

2003 31 52 4

1992 Other

2003 

1992 Hispanic

2003 

1992 

Black

2003 

1992 

White

Race/ethnicity 

 and year 

80 40 20 60 0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent Below Basic Percent Basic and above 

1

Document 

12

9

25

15*

38

35

24

11

35 47 6

32 52 7

43 30 1

47 37 1

39 22 1

35 28 2

39 33 4

2003 41 46 3

1992 Other

2003 

1992 Hispanic

2003 

1992 

Black

2003 

1992 

White

80 40 20 60 0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent Below Basic Percent Basic and above 

Race/ethnicity 

 and year 

Prose 

27

19

63

49*

64

53*

41

34

39 28 6

45 33 4

28 9

37* 13 1

26 9 1

32 13 2

31 19 9

2003 41 24 1

1992 Other

2003 

1992 Hispanic

2003 

1992 

Black

2003 

1992 

White

Race/ethnicity 

 and year 

80 40 20 60 0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent Below Basic Percent Basic and above 

Below Basic Basic Intermediate Proficient

1

Quantitative

*Significantly different from 1992.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons.Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (3 percent in 1992 and 1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this figure. In 1992, respondents were allowed to identify only one race but could identify “other” as their race. In 2003, respondents were

allowed to identify multiple races but could not choose “other” as their race.The “Other” category includes Asians, Pacific Islanders, Native Hawaiians, American Indians, and Alaska Natives. In 2003, the “Other” category also includes adults who said they were multi-racial; in 1992, it also includes adults who chose “other” as their race. All adults of Hispanic origin are classified as Hispanic, regardless of race. Black includes

African American, and Hispanic includes Latino.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey and 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.
16

Literacy Behind Bars

Highest Level of Educational Attainment

Average document literacy declined between 1992

and 2003 for inmates with postsecondary education

(figure 2-5).There were no other statistically significant changes in average prose, document, and quantitative literacy for inmates at any other level of educational attainment.Within educational attainment categories, there were no statistically significant changes

in the distribution of prison inmates across the literacy levels on any of the three scales (figure 2-6).

In 2003, inmates with less than a high school education had lower average prose and quantitative literacy

than inmates with some high school; inmates with

some high school had lower average prose and quantitative literacy than inmates who had received a high

school diploma or a GED/high school equivalency

certificate; and inmates who had received a high

school diploma or a GED/high school equivalency

certificate had lower average prose and document literacy than inmates who had postsecondary education

(figure 2-5). On the document scale, incarcerated

adults’ average literacy increased with each increasing

level of education up to a high school diploma or a

GED/high school equivalency certificate.On all three

scales, prison inmates with a high school diploma had

lower average literacy than inmates with a GED/high

school equivalency certificate.

Figure 2-5. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison population, by highest

educational attainment: 1992 and 2003

205199

228235

270 270

251

264

286282

195192

229231

255260

250255

279

267*

184

198

215223

259263

235

247

277280

1992 2003

0 

150 

200 

250 

Average score 

300 

350 

500 

Prose Document Quantitative

Educational attainment

Less than 

high 

school

Some 

high 

school

GED/high 

school 

equivalency

High 

school 

graduate

PostsecondaryLess than 

high 

school

Some 

high 

school

GED/high 

school 

equivalency

High 

school 

graduate

PostsecondaryLess than 

high 

school

Some 

high 

school

GED/high 

school 

equivalency

High 

school 

graduate

Postsecondary

*Significantly different from 1992.

NOTE: Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (3 percent in 1992 and 1 percent in

2003) are excluded from this figure. Postsecondary includes any education beyond high school.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey and 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.
17

Chapter 2: Changes in the Prison Population and Prisoners’ Literacy between 1992 and 2003

Figure 2-6. Percentage of the adult prison population in each prose, document, and quantitative literacy level,

by highest educational attainment: 1992 and 2003

34 55 1

80 40 20 60 0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent Below Basic Percent Basic and above 

55

56

28

22

9

5

19

15

5

5

29 15 1

30 14

41 31

48 30

#

#

33 60 2

31 46 4

28 54 3

21 63 11

2003 27 65 3

1992 

2003 

1992 

2003 

1992 

2003 

1992 

2003 

1992 

Educational 

 attainment and year 

Less than

 high school

Some

 high school

GED/high school

 equivalency

High school

 graduate

Postsecondary

1

Document 

50

58

33

25

4

5

19

14

5

5

35 15

31 11

47 19

54 21

#

#

#

40 54 2

38 54 3

39 40 2

34 47 5

26 58 11

2003 28 58 8

1992 

2003 

1992 

2003 

1992 

2003 

1992 

2003 

1992 

80 40 20 60 0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent Below Basic Percent Basic and above 

Educational 

 attainment and year 

Less than

 high school

Some

 high school

GED/high school

 equivalency

High school

 graduate

Postsecondary

1

Prose 

75

74

64

62

29

23

49

41

21

15

16 7 1

21 5

29 7

30 8

#

#

47 22 2

53 23 1

33 16 2

34 22 3

38 33 8

44 36 5

80 40 20 60 0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent Below Basic Percent Basic and above 

2003 

1992 

2003 

1992 

2003 

1992 

2003 

1992 

2003 

1992 

Educational 

 attainment and year 

Less than

 high school

Some

 high school

GED/high school

 equivalency

High school

 graduate

Postsecondary

Below Basic Basic Intermediate Proficient

1

Quantitative

# Rounds to zero.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons.Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (3 percent in 1992 and 1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this figure. Postsecondary includes any education beyond high school.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey and 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.
Gender

The average prose and quantitative literacy of incarcerated men increased between 1992 and 2003 (figure

2-7).There were no statistically significant changes in

the average literacy of incarcerated women on any of

the three scales.10

Between 1992 and 2003, the percentage of male

inmates with Below Basic literacy declined from 22 to

17 percent on the prose scale, from 22 to 15 percent

on the document scale, and from 49 to 39 percent on

the quantitative scale (figure 2-8).

There were no statistically significant differences in

average prose, document, and quantitative literacy

between male and female prison inmates in 2003

(figure 2-7).

18

Literacy Behind Bars

Figure 2-7. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison

population, by gender: 1992 and 2003

249 257*

244

259

243 249 242 249

235

250*

221

237

1992 2003

0 

150 

200 

250 

Average score 

300 

350 

500 Prose Document Quantitative

Male Female Male Female Male Female

Gender

*Significantly different from 1992.

NOTE: Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not

be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (3 percent in 1992 and 1

percent in 2003) are excluded from this figure.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for

Education Statistics, 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey and 2003 National Assessment of Adult

Literacy.

10 The sample of female prison inmates was smaller than the sample of male prison inmates, reflecting the fact that fewer women

than men are incarcerated in state and federal prisons. Because the

sample was smaller, standard errors were larger, and differences that

look large were not necessarily statistically significant.The fact that

a difference is not statistically significant does not necessarily mean

that there was no difference in literacy between 1992 and 2003 for

female inmates; rather, it means that we cannot be 95 percent certain that the difference we see in the sample would hold for the

population of female prison inmates as a whole.
19

Chapter 2: Changes in the Prison Population and Prisoners’ Literacy between 1992 and 2003

Figure 2-8. Percentage of the adult prison population in each prose, document, and quantitative literacy level,

by gender: 1992 and 2003

22

15*

22

15

33 42 3

35 48* 2

33 42 3

2003 35 49 2

1992 Female

2003 

1992 Male

80 40 20 60 0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent Below Basic Percent Basic and above 

Gender and year 

Document

22

17*

25

9

40 35 3

39 41* 4

39 34 3

2003 49 42

1992 Female

2003 

1992 Male

80 40 20 60 0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent Below Basic Percent Basic and above 

Gender and year 

Prose

1

49

39*

59

47

32 16 3

39* 20* 2

27 12 2

2003 38 15

1992 Female

2003 

1992 Male

80 40 20 60 0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent Below Basic Percent Basic and above 

Gender and year 

Quantitative

Below Basic Basic Intermediate Proficient

1

*Significantly different from 1992.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons.Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (3 percent in 1992 and 1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this figure.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey and 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.
20

Literacy Behind Bars

Age

The average prose, document, and quantitative literacy of prison inmates in the 25 to 39 age group

increased between 1992 and 2003 (figure 2-9). The

25 to 38 age group was the largest age group in the

prison population in both 1992 and 2003, but the

percentage of the incarcerated population in this age

group fell from 58 percent in 1992 to 52 percent in

2003 (table 2-1). There were no statistically significant changes in average literacy among inmates in

the 16 to 24 or 40 and older age groups.

On all three scales, a lower percentage of prison

inmates in the 25 to 39 age group had Below Basic

literacy and a higher percentage had Intermediate literacy in 2003 than in 1992 (figure 2-10).

In 2003, incarcerated adults who were 40 years old

or older had lower average prose and document literacy than incarcerated adults who were 25 to 39

years old (figure 2-9).

Figure 2-9. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison population, by age:

1992 and 2003

251 255 247

260*

250 252 250 248 242

254*

238 240 236

246

231

252*

241 245

Age 

16–24 25–39 40 or older 16–24 25–39 40 or older 16–24 25–39 40 or older

1992 2003

0 

150 

200 

250 

Average score 

300 

350 

500 

Prose Document Quantitative

*Significantly different from 1992.

NOTE: Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (3 percent in 1992 and 1 percent in

2003) are excluded from this figure.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey and 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.
21

Chapter 2: Changes in the Prison Population and Prisoners’ Literacy between 1992 and 2003

Figure 2-10. Percentage of the adult prison population in each prose, document, and quantitative literacy level,

by age: 1992 and 2003

21 37 41 1*

33 47 3

37 47 2

33 42 3

33 53* 2

30 37 5

17

14

23

11*

28

2003 

1992 

2003 

1992 

2003 

1992 

40 or older

25–39

16–24

80 40 20 60 0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent Below Basic Percent Basic and above 

Age and year Document 

2003 

1992 

18

19

24

13*

21

2003 20

1992 

2003 

1992 

40 or older

25–39

16–24

80 40 20 60 0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent Below Basic Percent Basic and above 

Age and year 

45 35 3

38 40 4

37 35 3

40 45* 3

40 36 4

40 37 3

Prose 

48

43

52

36*

46

42

36 14 2

37 18 2

31 15 3

42* 20* 2

30 19 5

35 20 2

2003 

1992 

2003 

1992 

2003 

1992 

40 or older

25–39

16–24

80 40 20 60 0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent Below Basic Percent Basic and above 

Age and year 

Below Basic Basic Intermediate Proficient

Quantitative

*Significantly different from 1992.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons.Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (3 percent in 1992 and 1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this figure.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey and 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.
22

Literacy Behind Bars

Language Spoken Before Starting School

Average prose and quantitative literacy increased

between 1992 and 2003 for prison inmates who

spoke only English before starting school (figure 2-

11).There were no statistically significant changes in

average literacy for inmates who spoke English and

another language before starting school or for inmates

who spoke only a language other than English.

The percentage of prison inmates who spoke only

English before starting school and had Below Basic literacy decreased from 19 to 13 percent on the prose

scale, 21 to 13 percent on the document scale, and 48

to 37 percent on the quantitative scale (figure 2-12).

The percentage of prison inmates who spoke only

English before starting school and had Intermediate

literacy increased from 38 to 44 percent on the prose

scale, 44 to 50 percent on the document scale, and 16

to 21 percent on the quantitative scale.

The percentage of prison inmates who spoke English

and another language before starting school and had

Below Basic literacy decreased from 32 to 15 percent

on the prose scale (figure 2-12).

In 2003, prison inmates who spoke only English or

English and another language before starting school

had higher average prose, document, and quantitative

literacy than prison inmates who spoke only a language other than English before starting school (figure 2-11).

Figure 2-11. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison population, by language spoken before starting school: 1992 and 2003

252

261*

238

255

211 207

246 251

242 250

213 210

237

252*

239 243

197

219

1992 2003

English only English and other Other only English only English and other Other only English only English and other Other only

0 

150 

200 

250 

Average score 

300 

350 

500 

Prose Document Quantitative

Language

*Significantly different from 1992.

NOTE: Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (3 percent in 1992 and 1 percent in

2003) are excluded from this figure.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey and 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.
23

Chapter 2: Changes in the Prison Population and Prisoners’ Literacy between 1992 and 2003

Figure 2-12. Percentage of the adult prison population in each prose, document, and quantitative literacy level,

by language spoken before starting school: 1992 and 2003

21

13*

20

12

43

40

32 44 4

35 50* 2

37 40 2

37 49 2

30 26 1

33 26 1

2003 

1992 

2003 

1992 

2003 

1992 

Other only

English

 and other

English only

Language and year 

80 40 20 60 0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent Below Basic Percent Basic and above 

Document 

19

13*

32

15*

47

51

40 38 3

40 44* 3

37 26 5

43 39 3

34 18 1

30 18 2

2003 

1992 

2003 

1992 

2003 

1992 

Other only

English

 and other

English only

80 40 20 60 0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent Below Basic Percent Basic and above 

Language and year 

Prose 

48 33 16 3

37* 40* 21* 2

48 32 16 4

44 39 16 1

70 20 9 2

60 30* 10

2003 

1992 

2003 

1992 

2003 

1992 

Other only

English

 and other

English only

Language and year 

80 40 20 60 0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent Below Basic Percent Basic and above 

Below Basic Basic Intermediate Proficient

1

Quantitative

*Significantly different from 1992.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons.Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (3 percent in 1992 and 1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this figure.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey and 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.
24

Literacy Behind Bars

Parents’ Highest Level of Educational

Attainment

Figure 2-13 shows prison inmates’ average levels of

prose, document, and quantitative literacy by their

parents’ level of educational attainment. There were

no statistically significant changes in the average literacy of inmates in any of the categories of parents’

educational attainment except for an increase in

quantitative literacy for inmates whose parents had

some high school education.

Figure 2-14 shows the distribution of prison inmates

by their literacy level and their parents’ level of educational attainment.There were no statistically significant differences between 1992 and 2003, except for

a decrease in the percentage of inmates with Below

Basic quantitative literacy whose parents completed

some high school.

In 2003, prison inmates whose parents had attended

some high school (but had not received a high school

diploma or a GED/high school equivalency certificate) had higher average prose, document, and quantitative literacy than prison inmates whose parents

had not attended any high school (figure 2-13).

Prison inmates whose parents had postsecondary

education had higher average prose, document, and

quantitative literacy than prison inmates whose parents ended their education with a high school diploma or a GED/high school equivalency certificate.

Figure 2-13. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison population, by parents’ highest educational attainment: 1992 and 2003

237 234

248

258 256 258

268 271

231 232 236

247 251 249

268 260

219

236 230

252*

240 248

262 263

1992 2003

Less than 

high school

High school 

graduate1

Some 

high school

PostsecondaryLess than 

high school

High school 

graduate1

Some 

high school

PostsecondaryLess than 

high school

High school 

graduate1

Some 

high school

Postsecondary

0 

150 

200 

250 

Average score 

300 

350 

500 

Prose Document Quantitative

Parents’ educational attainment

*Significantly different from 1992.

1

High school graduate category includes GED and high school equivalency.

NOTE: Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (3 percent in 1992 and 1 percent in

2003) are excluded from this figure. Postsecondary includes any education beyond high school.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey and 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.
25

Chapter 2: Changes in the Prison Population and Prisoners’ Literacy between 1992 and 2003

Figure 2-14. Percentage of the adult prison population in each prose, document, and quantitative literacy level,

by parents’ highest educational attainment: 1992 and 2003

33 35 3

35 36 2

35 36 3

35 47 2

32 49 3

37 49 1

26 60 6

32 58 2

30

27

26

17

16

13

8

8

80 40 20 60 0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent Below Basic Percent Basic and above 

2003 

1992 

2003 

1992 

2003 

1992 

2003 

1992 

Parents' educational 

 attainment and year 

Less than 

high school

High school 

graduate1

Some 

high school

Postsecondary

Document 

2003 

1992 

2003 

1992 

2003 

1992 

2003 

1992 

80 40 20 60 0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent Below Basic Percent Basic and above 

Parents' educational 

 attainment and year 

Less than 

high school

High school 

graduate1

Some 

high school

Postsecondary

31

30

21

17

16

14

13

7

35 31 3

43 26 1

42 35 2

38 41 5

41 40 3

40 43 3

33 47 7

36 53 4

Prose 

32

58

49

52

37*

46

39

30

27 13 2

38 13

31 14 3

38 22 3

35 17 2

41 19 1

37 24 6

40 26 5

80 40 20 60 0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent Below Basic Percent Basic and above 

2003 

1992 

2003 

1992 

2003 

1992 

2003 

1992 

Parents' educational 

 attainment and year 

Less than 

high school

High school 

graduate1

Some 

high school

Postsecondary

1

Below Basic Basic Intermediate Proficient

Quantitative

*Significantly different from 1992.

1

High school graduate category includes GED and high school equivalency.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons.Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (3 percent in 1992 and 1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this figure. Postsecondary includes any education beyond high school.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey and 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.
26

Literacy Behind Bars

Summary

The prison population was larger, older, and better

educated in 2003 than in 1992. Average prose and

quantitative literacy was higher among prison

inmates in 2003 than it was among inmates in 1992.

More prison inmates had Intermediate prose, document, and quantitative literacy in 2003 than in 1992,

and fewer had Below Basic prose, document, and

quantitative literacy.

Between 1992 and 2003, average prose and quantitative literacy levels increased for prison inmates who

were Black, male, or in the 25 to 39 age group.

Average document literacy increased for inmates who

were Black or in the 25 to 39 age group. Average

prose and quantitative literacy levels also increased for

prison inmates who spoke only English before starting school, and average quantitative literacy levels

increased for Hispanic inmates.Among all the demographic, educational attainment, and language background groups examined in this chapter, there were

no decreases in average literacy on any of the three

scales between 1992 and 2003.

In 2003, White prison inmates had higher average

prose, document, and quantitative literacy than Black

and Hispanic prison inmates. Prison inmates who

were 40 or older had lower average prose and document literacy than inmates who were 16 to 24 or 25

to 39 years old. Prison inmates who spoke English

before starting school had higher average literacy on

all three scales than inmates who did not speak any

English before starting school. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy increased or did not

change significantly among prison inmates with each

increasing level of education for them or their parents.
Comparing the Prison and Household

Populations

The 2003 adult prison and household populations differed in many characteristics.A higher percentage of prison inmates were Black

or Hispanic and a lower percentage were White than

adults living in households (table 3-1). Compared

with adults living in households, a higher percentage

of prison inmates were male (94 percent versus 

48 percent), a lower percentage were age 40 or older

(32 percent versus 56 percent), and a lower percentage spoke only a language other than English as children (9 percent versus 13 percent).A lower percentage of prison inmates than adults living in households

completed any postsecondary education (22 percent

versus 51 percent) and a lower percentage of the parents of prison inmates than the parents of adults living in households completed any education beyond

high school (33 percent versus 42 percent).A higher

percentage of prison inmates than adults living in

households had been diagnosed with a learning disability (17 percent versus 6 percent),but there was no

measurable difference between the percentage of

adults in prisons and households who reported that

their overall health was poor or fair.A lower percentage of prison inmates than adults living in households

reported having served in the military (10 percent

versus 13 percent) (table 3-1).

27

Total Prison and Household

Populations

Race/Ethnicity

Highest Level of Educational

Attainment

Gender

Age

Language Spoken Before

Starting School

Parents’ Highest Level of

Educational Attainment

Summary

CHAPTER THREE

3
Literacy Behind Bars

The analyses in this chapter examine how literacy

levels differed in 2003 between adults living in

households and prison inmates.The first analyses in

the chapter compare average literacy differences

among the total population in each group. However,

because of the differences in the characteristics of the

two groups, it is also meaningful to look at differences in literacy for groups within each population

with the same background characteristics (demographics, educational attainment, and language background). The majority of this chapter focuses on

those analyses.

Table 3-1. Percentage of the adult prison and

household populations in selected

groups: 2003

Characteristic Prison Household

Race/ethnicity

White 32 71*

Black 46 11*

Hispanic 18 12*

Other 5 6

Gender

Male 94 48*

Female 6 52*

Highest educational attainment

Still in high school † 3*

Less than high school 9 6*

Some high school 28 10*

GED/high school equivalency 28 5*

High school graduate 13 26*

Postsecondary 22 51*

Age

16–24 16 17

25–39 52 27*

40+ 32 56*

Language spoken before starting school

English only 85 81*

English and other 6 6

Other only 9 13*

Parents’ highest educational attainment

Less than high school 13 18*

Some high school 13 9*

GED/high school equivalency/

high school graduate 41 31*

Postsecondary 33 42*

Veteran’s status

Veteran 10 13*

Not a veteran 90 87*

Self-reported health

Poor 4 4

Fair 11 11

Good 22 24*

Very good 35 36

Excellent 28 26

Learning disability diagnosis

Yes 17 6*

No 84 94*

†Not applicable.

*Significantly different from prison population.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Adults are defined as people 16 years of

age and older living in prisons or households. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language

spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent of the prison sample and 3 percent of the

household sample in 2003) are excluded from this table.The “Other” category includes Asians,

Pacific Islanders, Native Hawaiians, American Indians, Alaska Natives, and multi-racial adults. All

adults of Hispanic origin are classified as Hispanic, regardless of race. Black includes African

American, and Hispanic includes Latino. Postsecondary includes any education beyond high school.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for

Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

28
29

Total Prison and Household Populations

Prison inmates had lower average prose, document,

and quantitative literacy than adults living in households (figure 3-1).

A higher percentage of prison inmates than adults

living in households had Below Basic quantitative literacy (39 percent compared with 21 percent),but the

differences in the percentage of prison inmates and

adults living in households who had Below Basic

prose or document literacy were not statistically significant (figure 3-2).

Among prison inmates, 2 to 3 percent had Proficient

prose, document, and quantitative literacy compared

with 13 to 14 percent of adults living in households.

A lower percentage of adults in prison than adults

living in households had Intermediate document or

quantitative literacy and a higher percentage had

Basic prose, document, or quantitative literacy.

Chapter 3: Comparing the Prison and Household Populations

Figure 3-1. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison

and household populations: 2003

257

275*

249

271*

249

283*

0 

150 

200 

250 

Average score 

300 

350 

500 

Prose Document Quantitative

Literacy scale

Prison Household

*Significantly different from prison population.

NOTE: Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons or households. Adults

who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent

of the prison sample and 3 percent of the household sample in 2003) are excluded from this figure.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for

Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Figure 3-2. Percentage of the adult prison and

household populations in each prose,

document, and quantitative literacy

level: 2003

16 40 41 3

14

15

12

39

21*

29* 44 13*

35 48 2

22* 53* 13*

39 20 2

33* 33* 14*

Household 

Prison 

Household 

Prison 

Household 

Prison 

Quantitative

Document

Prose

80 40 20 60 0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent Below Basic Percent Basic and above 

Literacy scale 

and population 

Below Basic Basic Intermediate Proficient 

*Significantly different from prison population.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Adults are defined as people 16 years of

age and older living in prisons or households. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent of the prison sample and 3 percent of

the household sample in 2003) are excluded from this figure.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for

Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.
30

Literacy Behind Bars

Race/Ethnicity

Incarcerated White adults had lower average prose

literacy than White adults living in households (figure 3-3). This finding was reversed for Blacks and

Hispanics: Black and Hispanic prison inmates had

higher average prose literacy than Black and

Hispanic adults living in households.

White prison inmates also had lower average document and quantitative literacy than White adults living in households (figure 3-3).Among Black adults,

there was no statistically significant difference in

document or quantitative literacy between those

who were incarcerated and those who lived in

households. For Hispanic adults, those who were

incarcerated had higher document literacy than

those who lived in households.

Prison inmates are on average younger than adults

living in households, and previous studies (Kutner,

Greenberg, and Baer 2005) of the 2003 adult literacy data indicated that a relationship exists between

age and literacy. Given this finding, analyses were

conducted to compare the prose literacy of the

prison and household populations by both race/ethnicity and age group.

As shown in table 3-2, within the same age group

either White prison inmates had lower average prose

literacy than White adults living in households or

there was no statistically significant difference

Figure 3-3. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison and household populations, by race/ethnicity: 2003

274

289*

252

243*

232

216*

262

271 265

282*

240 238 236

224*

255

270 274

297*

237 238 231 233

254

279*

White Black Hispanic Other White Black Hispanic Other White Black Hispanic Other

Prison Household

Prose Document Quantitative

0 

150 

200 

250 

Average score 

300 

350 

500 

Race/ethnicity

*Significantly different from prison population.

NOTE: Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons or households. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent of the prison

sample and 3 percent of the household sample in 2003) are excluded from this figure.The “Other” category includes Asians, Pacific Islanders, Native Hawaiians, American Indians, Alaska Natives, and multi-racial

adults. All adults of Hispanic origin are classified as Hispanic, regardless of race. Black includes African American, and Hispanic includes Latino.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.
31

between the two groups. Black prison inmates in the

40 and older age group had higher average prose literacy than Black adults living in households, but the

difference between Black prison inmates and Black

adults living in households was not statistically significant in the 16 to 24 and 25 to 39 age groups.Among

Hispanics, the difference in average prose literacy

between incarcerated adults and adults living in

households was not statistically significant in the 16 to

24 and 40 and older age groups. In the 25 to 39 age

group, Hispanic adults in prison had higher average

prose literacy than Hispanic adults in households.

The literacy of prison inmates by date of incarceration and race/ethnicity was also examined. Black

inmates who were incarcerated prior to 2002 had

higher prose literacy than Black adults living in

households, but Black inmates who were incarcerated

in 2002 or later had prose literacy that was not statistically significantly different from that of Black adults

living in households (table 3-3).

An examination of the distribution by literacy level

of prison inmates and adults living in households

shows that 3 to 7 percent of White prison inmates

had Proficient prose, document, and quantitative literacy, compared with 15 to 17 percent of White

adults living in households (figure 3-4).A lower percentage of White adults living in households than

White adults in prisons had Basic prose and quantitative literacy.

A lower percentage of Black prison inmates than

Black adults living in households had Below Basic

prose literacy (figure 3-4).

A lower percentage of Hispanic prison inmates than

Hispanic adults living in households had Below Basic

prose or document literacy.

Chapter 3: Comparing the Prison and Household Populations

Table 3-2. Average prose literacy scores of the adult

prison and household populations, by

race/ethnicity and age: 2003

Race/ethnicity and age Prison Household

White

16–24 285 287

25–39 275 303*

40+ 267 283*

Black

16–24 238 249

25–39 260 253

40+ 248 234*

Hispanic

16–24 260 235

25–39 229 213*

40+ 218 205

*Significantly different from prison population.

NOTE: Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons or households. Adults

who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent of the prison sample and 3 percent of the household sample in 2003) are excluded from this

table. All adults of Hispanic origin are classified as Hispanic, regardless of race. Black includes

African American, and Hispanic includes Latino.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for

Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Table 3-3. Average prose literacy scores of the adult

prison and household populations, by

race/ethnicity and date incarcerated:

2003

Incarcerated Incarcerated

Race/ethnicity prior to 2002 2002 or later Household

White 275* 273* 289

Black 255* 249 243

*Significantly different from household population.

NOTE: Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons or households. Adults

who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent of the prison sample and 3 percent of the household sample in 2003) are excluded from this

table. Because of sample size, theses analyses are not reported for the Hispanic population. Black

includes African American.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for

Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.
32

Literacy Behind Bars

Figure 3-4. Percentage of the adult prison and household populations in each prose, document, and quantitative literacy level, by race/ethnicity: 2003

6 27 64 3

8 19 58 15*

19 40 40 1

24 35 40 2

23 36 39 2

36* 26* 33 5*

14 31 52 4

Household 11 24 54 11

Prison Other

Household 

Prison Hispanic

Household 

Prison 

Black

Household 

Prison 

White

Race/ethnicity 

 and population 

80 40 20 60 0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent Below Basic Percent Basic and above 

Document 

9 32 52 7

7 25* 51 17*

15 47 37 1

24* 43 31 2

35 35 28 2

45* 29 22 4

11 41 46 3

Household 13 32 45 10

Prison Other

Household 

Prison Hispanic

Household 

Prison 

Black

Household 

Prison 

White

80 40 20 60 0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent Below Basic Percent Basic and above 

Race/ethnicity 

 and population 

Prose 

Household 

Prison Other

Household 

Prison Hispanic

Household 

Prison 

Black

Household 

Prison 

White

Race/ethnicity 

 and population 

Below Basic Basic Intermediate Proficient 

80 40 20 60 0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent Below Basic Percent Basic and above 

19 45 33 4

13 32* 39 17*

49 37 13 1

47 36 15 2

53 32 13 2

50 29 17* 4

34 41 24 1

23 35 32 11*

Quantitative

*Significantly different from prison population.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons or households. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent of the prison sample and 3 percent of the household sample in 2003) are excluded from this figure.The ‘Other’ category includes Asians, Pacific Islanders, Native Hawaiians,

American Indians, Alaska Natives, and multi-racial adults. All adults of Hispanic origin are classified as Hispanic, regardless of race. Black includes African American, and Hispanic includes Latino.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.
33

Chapter 3: Comparing the Prison and Household Populations

Highest Level of Educational Attainment

Among adult who ended their education before

starting high school (classified as “less than high

school” in the figure), prison inmates had higher

average literacy on all three scales than adults living

in households (figure 3-5). Prison inmates with a

GED/high school equivalency certificate had higher average prose literacy than adults living in households with a GED/high school equivalency certificate. For all other levels of educational attainment,

either prison inmates had lower average prose, document, and quantitative literacy than adults living in

households with the same level of educational

attainment or there was no statistically significant

difference between the two groups (figure 3-5).

Among adults who ended their education before

starting high school, a lower percentage of adults in

prison than adults living in households had Below

Basic prose and document literacy (figure 3-6).

Among adults with postsecondary education, a lower

percentage of adults in prison than adults in households had Proficient prose, document, and quantitative

literacy and a higher percentage had Basic literacy on

all three scales and Below Basic literacy on the quantitative scale (figure 3-6).

Figure 3-5. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison and household populations, by highest educational attainment: 2003

199

160*

235228

270

260* 264262

282

302*

192

159*

231230

260257 255258

267

293*

198

166*

223231*

263266

247

269*

280

310*

0 

150 

200 

250 

Average score 

300 

350 

500 

Prose Document Quantitative

Educational attainment

Less than 

high 

school

Some 

high 

school

GED/high 

school 

equivalency

High 

school 

graduate

PostsecondaryLess than 

high 

school

Some 

high 

school

GED/high 

school 

equivalency

High 

school 

graduate

PostsecondaryLess than 

high 

school

Some 

high 

school

GED/high 

school 

equivalency

High 

school 

graduate

Postsecondary

Prison Household

*Significantly different from prison population.

NOTE: Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons or households. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent of the prison

sample and 3 percent of the household sample in 2003) are excluded from this figure. Postsecondary includes any education beyond high school.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.
34

Literacy Behind Bars

Figure 3-6. Percentage of the adult prison and household populations in each prose, document, and quantitative literacy level, by highest educational attainment: 2003

Household 

Prison 

Household 

Prison 

Household 

Prison 

Household 

Prison 

Household 

Prison 

100 40 20 80 60 0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent Below Basic Percent Basic and above 

Educational 

 attainment 

and population 

Less than

 high

 school

Some

 high

 school

GED/high

 school

 equivalency

High

 school

 graduate

Postsecondary

58 31 11 #

79* 17*

4*

#

25 54 21 #

35 42* 22 1*

5 38 54 3

11 45 42 3

14 34 47 5

13 39 44 4

5 28 58 8

4 19* 54 23*

Prose

56 30 14

72* 18* 9

22 48 30

#

#

#

30 36 33 2*

5 33 60 2

13* 30 53 4

15 28 54 3

13 29 52 5

5 27 65 3

4 15* 63 19* Household 

Prison 

Household 

Prison 

Household 

Prison 

Household 

Prison 

Household 

Prison 

100 40 20 80 60 0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent Below Basic Percent Basic and above 

Educational 

 attainment 

and population 

Less than

 high

 school

Some

 high

 school

GED/high

 school

 equivalency

High

 school

 graduate

Postsecondary

Document

Below Basic Basic Intermediate Proficient 

74 21 5

84 12*

3

62 30 8

#

#

#

53 33 13* 1

23 53 23 1

26 43 28 3

41 34 22 3

24* 42* 29* 5

15 44 36 5

7* 28* 43 22* Household 

Prison 

Household 

Prison 

Household 

Prison 

Household 

Prison 

Household 

Prison 

100 40 20 80 60 0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent Below Basic Percent Basic and above 

Educational 

 attainment 

and population 

Less than

 high

 school

Some

 high

 school

GED/high

 school

 equivalency

High

 school

 graduate

Postsecondary

Quantitative

# Rounds to zero.

*Significantly different from prison population.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons or households. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent of the prison sample and 3 percent of the household sample in 2003) are excluded from this figure. Postsecondary includes any education beyond high school.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.
35

Highest level of educational attainment and

race/ethnicity

In this section, literacy results by highest level of educational attainment are reported separately for Black

and White adults. Comparisons are made between

adults living in households and prison inmates.

Results are not reported separately for Hispanic adults

by highest level of educational attainment because

there were not enough Hispanic adults in the prison

sample to support reporting at this level of detail.

Among White adults who did not graduate from high

school or ended their education with a GED/high

school equivalency certificate or a high school diploma, there was no statistically significant different

between the prose, document, and quantitative 

literacy of those adults who lived in households and

those adults who were incarcerated (figure 3-7).

However, among Black adults who did not graduate

from high school or ended their education with a

GED/high school equivalency certificate or a high

school diploma, Black prison inmates had higher

average prose literacy than Black adults living in

households (figure 3-8). Among Black adults who

did not graduate from high school or ended their

education with a GED/high school equivalency certification, Black prison inmates also had higher document and quantitative literacy than Black adults living in households.A lower percentage of Black adults

in prison than Black adults in households had Below

Basic prose and document literacy (table 3-4).

Chapter 3: Comparing the Prison and Household Populations

Figure 3-7. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the White adult prison and household

populations, by highest educational attainment: 2003

Less than 

or some 

high school

GED/high 

school 

equivalency

High school 

graduate

Postsecondary

243

231

275 270

279

270

295

310*

Less than 

or some 

high school

GED/high 

school 

equivalency

High school 

graduate

Postsecondary

239

229

267 266 272 264

278

300*

Less than 

or some 

high school

GED/high 

school 

equivalency

High school 

graduate

Postsecondary

240 235

275 279 277 279

296

318*

0

150

200

250

Average score

300

350

500

Prose Document Quantitative

Educational attainment

Prison Household

*Significantly different from prison population.

NOTE: Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons or households. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent of the prison

sample and 3 percent of the household sample in 2003) are excluded from this figure. Postsecondary includes any education beyond high school.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.
Among White adults who had at least some education beyond high school, those living in households

had higher literacy on all three scales than those who

were incarcerated (figure 3-7). Additionally, a higher

percentage of White adults who had at least some

postsecondary education and lived in households

than adults with the same level of education who

lived in prison had Proficient literacy on all three

scales (table 3-4). Among Black adults who had at

least some education beyond high school, there were

no differences in average literacy between those who

lived in households and those who were incarcerated (figure 3-8).

36

Literacy Behind Bars

Figure 3-8. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the Black adult prison and household

populations, by highest educational attainment: 2003

229

200*

270

233*

255

240*

271 268

221

196*

254

232*

243

232

255 261

213

189*

254

232* 227 232

266 266

Less than 

or some 

high school

GED/high 

school 

equivalency

High school 

graduate

PostsecondaryLess than 

or some 

high school

GED/high 

school 

equivalency

High school 

graduate

PostsecondaryLess than 

or some 

high school

GED/high 

school 

equivalency

High school 

graduate

Postsecondary

0

150

200

250

Average score

300

350

500

Prose Document Quantitative

Educational attainment

Prison Household

*Significantly different from prison population.

NOTE: Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons or households. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent of the prison

sample and 3 percent of the household sample in 2003) are excluded from this figure. Postsecondary includes any education beyond high school.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.
37

Chapter 3: Comparing the Prison and Household Populations

Table 3-4. Percentage of the Black and White adult prison and household populations in each prose, document,

and quantitative literacy level, by highest educational attainment: 2003

Population, literacy scale,

and educational attainment Prison Household Prison Household Prison Household Prison Household

White adults

Prose

Less than or some high school 20 34 49 40 30 24 1 2

GED/high school equivalency 3 5 35 40 58 52 4 3

High school graduate 11 8 27 37 51 51 12 4

Postsecondary 5 2 19 15 61 56 15 27*

Document

Less than or some high school 18 32 44 32 38 34 # 3

GED/high school equivalency 2 9 27 26 69 60 2 5

High school graduate 9 10 19 27 65 57 7 6

Postsecondary 3 2 18 12 74 63 6 23*

Quantitative

Less than or some high school 47 50 37 33 15 15 1 2

GED/high school equivalency 12 15 55 45 32 37 2 4

High school graduate 20 17 39 42 36 35 5 6

Postsecondary 5 4 38 24 49 46 8 26*

Black adults

Prose

Less than or some high school 29 54* 55 36 16 10 # #

GED/high school equivalency 5 23 39 63 53 15* 3 #

High school graduate 14 23 44 49 41 27 1 1

Postsecondary 4 10 40 37 53 49 3 5

Document

Less than or some high school 33 52* 44 31* 23 17 # #

GED/high school equivalency 9 24 38 44 52 33 1 #

High school graduate 20 24 35 42 43 33 2 #

Postsecondary 7 8 38 30 53 59 1 3

Quantitative

Less than or some high school 70 76 26 20 4 5 # #

GED/high school equivalency 31 53 51 40 17 7 1 #

High school graduate 54 52 31 37 14 10 1 #

Postsecondary 24 24 47 46 26 27 2 3

# Rounds to zero.

*Significantly different from prison population.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons or households. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent of the prison sample and 3 percent of the household sample in 2003) are excluded from this table. Postsecondary includes any education beyond high school.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Below Basic Basic Intermediate Proficient
Gender

Male and female prison inmates had lower average

literacy on all three scales than adults of the same

gender living in households (figure 3-9). A lower

percentage of adult men and women in prisons had

Proficient prose, document, and quantitative literacy

than men and women living in households (figure 3-

10).A higher percentage of men and women in prisons than men and women living in households had

Below Basic quantitative literacy.

38

Literacy Behind Bars

Figure 3-9. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison

and household populations, by gender:

2003

257

273*

259

277*

249

269*

249

272*

250

287*

237

279*

0 

150 

200 

250 

Average score 

300 

350 

500 Prose Document Quantitative

Male Female Male Female Male Female

Gender

Prison Household

Figure 3-10. Percentage of the adult prison and

household populations in each prose,

document, and quantitative literacy

level, by gender: 2003

17 39 41 4

15 29* 43 13*

9 49 42 1

12 28 46 14*

15 35 48 2

14 23* 51 13*

15 35 49 2

11 22 54 13*

39 39 20 2

21* 31* 33* 16*

47 38 15 1

22* 35 32* 11*

Below Basic Basic Intermediate Proficient 

Household 

Female

Household 

Male

Household 

Female

Household 

Male

Household 

Female

Prison 

Prison 

Prison 

Prison 

Prison 

Prison 

Household 

Male

80 40 20 60 0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent Below Basic Percent Basic and above 

Gender and 

 population 

Gender and 

 population 

Gender and 

 population 

Prose

80 40 20 60 0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent Below Basic Percent Basic and above 

Document

80 40 20 60 0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent Below Basic Percent Basic and above 

Quantitative

*Significantly different from prison population.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Adults are defined as people 16 years of

age and older living in prisons or households. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent of the prison sample and 3 percent of

the household sample in 2003) are excluded from this figure.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for

Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

*Significantly different from prison population.

NOTE: Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons or households. Adults

who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent

of the prison sample and 3 percent of the household sample in 2003) are excluded from this figure.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for

Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.
39

Chapter 3: Comparing the Prison and Household Populations

Age

In every age group, adult prison inmates had lower

average prose, document, and quantitative literacy

than adults living in households (figure 3-11).A lower

percentage of adults in prison had Proficient literacy on

all three scales than adults in the same age group in

households (figure 3-12). On the quantitative scale,

a higher percentage of adult prison inmates had

Below Basic literacy than adults living in households

in the same age group (figure 3-11). Among adults

who were age 40 and older, 20 percent of adult

prison inmates had Below Basic prose literacy compared with 15 percent of adults living in households

(figure 3-12).

Figure 3-11. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison and household populations, by age: 2003

255

273*

260

284*

252

272*

248

274*

254

283*

240

264*

246

275*

252

292*

245

281*

Age 

16–24 25–39 40 or older 16–24 25–39 40 or older 16–24 25–39 40 or older 0 

150 

200 

250 

Average score 

300 

350 

500 

Prose Document Quantitative

Prison Household

*Significantly different from prison population.

NOTE: Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons or households. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent of the prison

sample and 3 percent of the household sample in 2003) are excluded from this figure.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.
40

Literacy Behind Bars

Figure 3-12. Percentage of the adult prison and household populations in each prose, document, and quantitative literacy level, by age: 2003

Household 

Prison 

Household 

Prison 

Household 

Prison 

40 or older

25–39

16–24

80 40 20 60 0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent Below Basic Percent Basic and above 

Age and population 

19 38 40 4

11 32 48 9*

13 40 45 3

12 25* 45 18*

20 40 37 3

15* 30* 43* 12*

Prose

Household 

Prison 

Household 

Prison 

Household 

Prison 

40 or older

25–39

16–24

80 40 20 60 0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent Below Basic Percent Basic and above 

Age and population 

14 37 47 2

10 22* 57 12*

11 33 53 2

8 19* 56 17*

21 37 41 1

15 24* 50* 11*

Document

43 37 18 2

23* 37 31* 9*

36 42 20 2

17* 31* 35* 17*

42 35 20 2

23* 32 32* 13*

Household 

Prison 

Household 

Prison 

Household 

Prison 

40 or older

25–39

16–24

Below Basic Basic Intermediate Proficient 

80 40 20 60 0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent Below Basic Percent Basic and above 

Age and population 

Quantitative

*Significantly different from prison population.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons or households. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent of the prison sample and 3 percent of the household sample in 2003) are excluded from this figure.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.
41

Language Spoken Before Starting School

Among adults who spoke only English before starting school, those who were in prison had lower average prose, document, and quantitative literacy than

those who lived in households (figure 3-13).Among

adults who spoke English and another language

before starting school, those who were in prison had

lower average prose and quantitative literacy than

those who lived in households. Among adults who

spoke no English before starting school (classified as

“Other only”), there were no statistically significant

differences in average prose, document, and quantitative literacy between prison inmates and adults living

in households.

Among prison inmates who spoke only English

before starting school, 2 to 3 percent had Proficient

literacy on all three scales, compared with 14 to 15

percent of adults living in households with the same

language background (figure 3-14).A lower percentage of adults in prison who spoke only English

before starting school had Intermediate prose, document, and quantitative literacy than adults living in

households with the same language background.

Chapter 3: Comparing the Prison and Household Populations

Figure 3-13. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison and household populations, by language spoken before starting school: 2003

261

283*

255

272*

207 212

251

276*

250

264

210

223

252

289*

243

278*

219

235

English only English and other Other only English only English and other Other only English only English and other Other only

0 

150 

200 

250 

Average score 

300 

350 

500 

Prose Document Quantitative

Language

Prison Household

*Significantly different from prison population.

NOTE: Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons or households. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent of the prison

sample and 3 percent of the household sample in 2003) are excluded from this figure.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.
42

Literacy Behind Bars

Figure 3-14. Percentage of the adult prison and household populations in each prose, document, and quantitative literacy level, by language spoken before starting school: 2003

Household 

Prison 

Household 

Prison 

Household 

Prison 

Other only

English

 and other

English only

80 40 20 60 0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent Below Basic Percent Basic and above 

Language and 

 population 

13 40 44 3

9* 27* 49* 15*

15 43 39 3

10 35 47 8

51 30 18 2

48 28 21 4

Prose

Household 

Prison 

Household 

Prison 

Household 

Prison 

Other only

English

 and other

English only

Language and 

 population 

80 40 20 60 0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent Below Basic Percent Basic and above 

13 35 50 2

9* 21* 56* 14*

12 37 49 2

11 27 56 6

40 33 26 1

37 25* 32 6*

Document

Household 

Prison 

Household 

Prison 

Household 

Prison 

Other only

English

 and other

English only

Language and 

 population 

Below Basic Basic Intermediate Proficient 

80 40 20 60 20 40 60 80 100

Percent Below Basic Percent Basic and above 

37 40 21 2

18* 33* 35* 15*

44 39 16 1

21* 38 31* 10*

60 30 10

49* 28 18* 6*

0

1

Quantitative

*Significantly different from prison population.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons or households. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent of the prison sample and 3 percent of the household sample in 2003) are excluded from this figure.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.
43

Chapter 3: Comparing the Prison and Household Populations

Parents’ Highest Level of Educational

Attainment

Figure 3-15 shows the average prose, document, and

quantitative literacy of adults living in prisons and

households by their parents’ level of educational

attainment. Among adults whose parents were high

school graduates or had attained postsecondary education, prison inmates had lower average prose, document, and quantitative literacy than those adults

who lived in households whose parents had the same

level of educational attainment. Prison inmates

whose parents had some high school but did not

complete high school also had lower average quantitative literacy than adults living in households whose

parents had the same level of educational attainment.

Among adults whose parents were high school graduates or had postsecondary education, a lower percentage of adults in prison than adults living in

households had Proficient literacy on all three scales

(figure 3-16).

Figure 3-15. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison and household populations, by parents’ highest educational attainment: 2003

234 227

258 261 258

278* 271

300*

232 224

247

256 249

273*

260

293*

236 239

252

267*

248

285*

263

305*

Less than 

high school

High school 

graduate1

Some 

high school

PostsecondaryLess than 

high school

High school 

graduate1

Some 

high school

PostsecondaryLess than 

high school

High school 

graduate1

Some 

high school

Postsecondary

0 

150 

200 

250 

Average score 

300 

350 

500 

Prose Document Quantitative

Parents' educational attainment

Prison Household

*Significantly different from prison population.

1

High school graduate category includes GED and high school equivalency.

NOTE: Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons or households. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent of the prison

sample and 3 percent of the household sample in 2003) are excluded from this figure. Postsecondary includes any education beyond high school.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.
44

Literacy Behind Bars

Figure 3-16. Percentage of the adult prison and household populations in each prose, document, and quantitative literacy level, by parents’ highest educational attainment: 2003

Household 

Prison 

Household 

Prison 

Household 

Prison 

Household 

Prison 

80 40 20 60 0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent Below Basic Percent Basic and above 

Parents' educational 

 attainment 

 and population 

Less than 

high school

High school 

graduate1

Some 

high school

Postsecondary

30 43 26 1

37 35 25 3*

17 38 41 5

16 36 42 6

14 40 43 3

10* 30* 49* 11*

7 36 53 4

5 20* 53 22*

Prose

80 40 20 60 0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent Below Basic Percent Basic and above 

Household 

Prison Postsecondary

Household 

Prison 

Household 

Prison 

Household 

Prison 

Parents' educational 

 attainment 

 and population 

Less than 

high school

High school 

graduate1

Some 

high school

27 35 36 2

35 30 32 3

17 35 47 2

15 29 50 6

13 37 49 1

8 23* 59 10*

8 32 58 2

4 15* 61 20*

Document

Household 

Prison Postsecondary

49 38 13 1

46 32 18 4*

37 38 22 3

28* 38 28 6

39 41 19 1

18* 35* 35* 12*

30 40 26 5

10* 29* 41* 21*

Below Basic Basic Intermediate Proficient 

80 40 20 60 0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent Below Basic Percent Basic and above 

Household 

Prison 

Household 

Prison 

Household 

Prison 

Parents' educational 

 attainment 

 and population 

Less than 

high school

High school 

graduate1

Some 

high school

Quantitative

*Significantly different from prison population.

1

High school graduate category includes GED and high school equivalency.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons or households. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent of the prison sample and 3 percent of the household sample in 2003) are excluded from this figure. Postsecondary includes any education beyond high school.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.
45

Chapter 3: Comparing the Prison and Household Populations

Summary

In 2003, there were demographic differences

between the adult prison and household populations.

A higher percentage of prison inmates were Black,

Hispanic, male, under age 40, and spoke only English

before starting school than adults in households.

On average, incarcerated adults had lower prose, document, and quantitative literacy than adults living in

households. Across the various demographic, educational attainment, and language background groups

examined in this chapter,adults in prison generally had

literacy that was either lower than or not statistically

different from the literacy of adults living in households. An exception was the analysis of literacy by

race/ethnicity, which showed that incarcerated Black

and Hispanic adults had higher average prose literacy

than Black and Hispanic adults living in households

and that incarcerated Hispanic adults also had higher

average document literacy than Hispanic adults living in households. However, there was no statistically significant difference in average prose literacy

between the Black and Hispanic prison and household populations in two of the three age groups

examined, but differences remained within one age

group for each racial/ethnic group.

Education and Job Training in Prison

Prisons are intended to rehabilitate criminal

offenders, as well as to punish and incapacitate them. The education and training systems operating within most prisons are a key component of the rehabilitation mission of prisons.

Previous studies have shown a relationship between

participation in educational programs and recidivism rates, with inmates who attend education programs less likely to be reincarcerated after their

release (Vacca 2004).

There are many reasons why prison inmates may be

motivated to participate in education and training

programs. Among these may be a realization that

they do not have skills that will lead to employment

upon their release from prison. As one inmate said,

“I’ve never had a career. I’ve had jobs, but never had

anything that would take me anywhere. It’s scary to

come out of jail and not realize what you’re going

to do” (Clayton 2005).

This chapter describes the relationships among literacy, education, and vocational training in prison.

The analyses in the chapter discuss both the prevalence of inmate participation in education and

training programs and the relationship between literacy levels and program participation.

47

Academic Education

Vocational Education 

Skill Certification 

Summary

CHAPTER FOUR

4
Academic Education

In both 1992 and 2003, GED classes were available

in most prisons. However, because of restrictions in

Pell Grants that were implemented in 1994, higher

educational opportunities were more limited for

prison inmates in 2003 than in 1992 (Welsh 2002).

In 2003, some 43 percent of prison inmates had a

high school diploma or a GED/high school equivalency certificate when they began their current

incarceration, so helping inmates complete their high

school education is a major aim of many prison academic programs (figure 4-1).11 Among prison

inmates in 2003, some 19 percent had earned their

GED/high school equivalency certificate during

their current incarceration, and an additional 5 percent were currently enrolled in academic classes.

Having a GED/high school equivalency certificate or

a high school diploma may be particularly important

for inmates who expect to be released soon and will

need to find a job outside of prison.However,the difference in the percentage of inmates who expected to

be released in 2 years or less and had a GED/high

school equivalency certificate or high school diploma, and the percentage of inmates who expected to

be released in more than 2 years and had a GED/high

school equivalency certificate or high school diploma, was not statistically significant.(figure 4-2) 

As discussed in chapter 2, prison inmates’ average

prose and quantitative literacy increased with each

increasing education level, and their document literacy increased with each increasing education level up

to a high school diploma or GED/high school

equivalency certificate (figure 2-7).

48

Literacy Behind Bars

Figure 4-1. Percentage of the adult prison population, by GED/high school diploma

attainment: 2003 

33

5

19

43

Earned GED 

during current 

incarceration

Earned GED/H.S. 

diploma prior 

to current 

incarceration

No GED/no

H.S. diploma/ 

currently 

enrolled in 

academic classes

No GED/no

H.S. diploma/

not currently

enrolled in 

academic classes

GED/H.S. diploma attainment 

0

20

40

60

80

100

Percent 

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Adults are defined as people 16 years of

age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or

cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this figure.The category

“earned GED/H.S. diploma prior to current incarceration” includes prison inmates who had higher

levels of educational attainment (postsecondary education) prior to their current incarceration.

SOURCE: U.S.Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for

Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Figure 4-2. Percentage of the adult prison population with a GED/high school equivalency certificate or high school diploma, by

expected date of release: 2003

65 60

2 years or less More than 2 years

Expected date of release

0

20

40

60

80

100

Percent 

NOTE: Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not

be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent in 2003) are

excluded from this figure.The category “earned GED/H.S. diploma prior to current incarceration”

includes prison inmates who had higher levels of educational attainment (postsecondary education) prior to their current incarceration.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for

Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

11 The 43 percent of prison inmates who had a high school diploma or a GED/high school equivalency certificate when they began

their current incarceration includes prison inmates who had higher levels of educational attainment (postsecondary education) prior

to their current incarceration.
Prison inmates who had a high school diploma or

a GED/high school equivalency certificate (either

earned during their current incarceration or prior

to their current incarceration) had higher average

prose, document, and quantitative literacy than

inmates who were currently enrolled in academic

classes in prison but had not yet earned their

GED/high school equivalency certificate (figure 4-

3). They also had higher average prose, document,

and quantitative literacy than inmates who were

not enrolled in any academic classes. The differences in average prose, document, and quantitative

literacy between inmates who earned their

GED/high school equivalency certificate during

their current incarceration and inmates who

entered prison with a high school diploma or

GED/high school equivalency certificate were not

statistically significant.

A lower percentage of prison inmates who had a

high school diploma or a GED/high school equivalency certificate had Below Basic prose and quantitative literacy than prison inmates who were currently

enrolled in academic classes or did not have a

GED/high school equivalency certificate and were

not enrolled in classes (figure 4-4). Similar to figure

4-3, there were no statistically significant differences

in the percentage of inmates at any of the literacy

levels between inmates who earned their high school

diploma or GED/high school equivalency certificate

prior to their current incarceration and inmates who

earned their GED/high school equivalency certificate during their current incarceration.

49

Chapter 4: Education and Job Training in Prison

Figure 4-3. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison population, by

GED/high school diploma attainment: 2003

273 273

262 261 266 266

228 227 223 227

217 224

No GED/not currently enrolled 

in academic classes

No GED/currently enrolled 

in academic classes

Earned GED during

current incarceration

Earned GED/H.S. diploma prior 

to current incarceration

Document Quantitative

Literacy scale

Prose

0 

150 

200 

250 

Average score 

300 

350 

500 

Document Quantitative

Literacy scale

Prose

0 

150 

200 

250 

Average score 

300 

350 

500 

No GED/H.S. diploma GED/H.S. diploma

NOTE: Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent in 2003) are excluded

from this figure.The category “earned GED/H.S. diploma prior to current incarceration” includes prison inmates who had higher levels of educational attainment (postsecondary education) prior to their current

incarceration.

SOURCE: U.S.Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.
Vocational Education 

Vocational education programs are designed to prepare prison inmates for work after their release from

prison. In 2000, some 56% of state prisons and 94%

of federal prisons offered vocational training (Harlow

2003). Examples of the types of vocational education

programs sometimes offered by prisons are auto

mechanics, construction trades, equipment repair,

HVAC installation and repair, culinary arts, cosmetology, and desktop publishing. The exact programs

50

Literacy Behind Bars

Figure 4-4. Percentage of the adult prison population in each prose, document, and quantitative literacy level,

by GED/high school diploma attainment: 2003

80 40 20 60 0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent Below Basic Percent Basic and above 

Diploma status 

No GED/currently

 enrolled in

 academic classes

No GED/not currently

 enrolled in

 academic classes

Earned GED/H.S. diploma

 prior to current

 incarceration

Prose

80 40 20 60 0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent Below Basic Percent Basic and above 

Diploma status 

No GED/not currently

 enrolled in

 academic classes

Earned GED/H.S. diploma 

 prior to current 

 incarceration 

No GED/currently

 enrolled in

 academic classes

Document

Below Basic Basic Intermediate Proficient 

Earned GED/H.S. diploma 

 prior to current 

 incarceration 

80 40 20 60 0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent Below Basic Percent Basic and above 

Diploma status 

No GED/currently

 enrolled in

 academic classes

Earned GED during

 current incarceration

No GED/not currently

 enrolled in

 academic classes

Quantitative

Earned GED during

 current incarceration

Earned GED during

 current incarceration

8 33 53 6

5 35 57 3

32 53 16 #

33 48 19 #

25 44 28 3

23 50 25 2

62

65

32 6 #

28 7 #

9 29 59 3

3 32 63 1

27

32

48 25 #

41 27 #

# Rounds to zero.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons.Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this figure.The category “earned GED/H.S. diploma prior to current incarceration” includes prison inmates who had higher levels of educational attainment

(postsecondary education) prior to their current incarceration.

SOURCE: U.S.Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.
offered differ among prisons.As shown in figure 4-5,

during their current incarceration, 71 percent of

prison inmates had not participated in any vocational training, 11 percent participated in vocational

training programs that lasted less than 6 months, 8

percent participated in programs that lasted 6 to 12

months, and 9 percent participated in vocational

training programs that lasted more than a year. In

2003, 14 percent of inmates were on a waiting list to

participate in a vocational education program, and 10

percent were enrolled in vocational education classes

(figure 4-6).

Participation in vocational training may be particularly important for inmates who are getting close to their

release date and will need to find a job outside of

prison. However, the percentage of incarcerated adults

who expected to be released within the next 2 years

and participated in vocational training was not statistically significantly different from the percentage

who expected to be released in over 2 years and participated in vocational training (figure 4-7).

Chapter 4: Education and Job Training in Prison

Figure 4-5. Percentage of the adult prison population, by length of participation in vocational training programs: 2003

Length of participation

Less than

6 months

No

participation

More than

1 year

6-12 months

0

20

40

60

80

100

71

11 8 9

Percent 

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Adults are defined as people 16 years of

age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or

cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this figure.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for

Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Figure 4-6. Percentage of the adult prison population, by enrollment in vocational training: 2003

Enrollment status

0

20

40

60

80

100

10 14

77

Percent 

Not enrolled and 

not on waiting list

Currently enrolled On a waiting list

in classes

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Adults are defined as people 16 years of

age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or

cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this figure.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for

Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Figure 4-7. Percentage of the adult prison population who participated in vocational training during their current incarceration, by

expected date of release: 2003

2 years or less More than 2 years

27 32

Expected date of release

0

20

40

60

80

100

Percent 

NOTE: Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not

be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent in 2003) are

excluded from this figure.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for

Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

51
Vocational training programs often include academic

instruction in the reading, writing, and mathematics

skills required for a particular profession, as well as

instruction in general work skills such as how to

communicate or work with other people. Among

those inmates who participated in vocational training

programs, 46 percent received some instruction in

reading as part of the program, 44 percent received

instruction in writing, 63 percent received instruction in mathematics, 31 percent received instruction

in computer skills, and 74 percent received instruction in how to communicate or work better with

other people (figure 4-8).

Prison inmates who had participated in vocational

training in the past had higher average prose and

document literacy than inmates who had not participated in any vocational training (figure 4-9).A higher percentage of prison inmates with Below Basic

prose literacy than with Intermediate prose literacy

had not participated in any vocational training programs (figure 4-10).

52

Literacy Behind Bars

Figure 4-8. Percentage of the adult prison population participating in vocational training

who received selected types of instruction as part of the vocational training,

by type of instruction: 2003

Reading

46

Writing

44

Mathematics

63

Computers

31

Communication

74

Vocational training emphasis

0

20

40

60

80

100

Percent 

NOTE: Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not

be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent in 2003) are

excluded from this figure.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for

Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Figure 4-9. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison

population, by participation in vocational training: 2003

NOTE: Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not

be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent in 2003) are

excluded from this figure.

SOURCE: U. S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for

Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

265 257 255 253 255

246 247 252 254

Average score 

Document Quantitative

Literacy scale

Prose

0 

150 

200 

250 

300 

350 

500 

Current participation Past participation No participation
53

Chapter 4: Education and Job Training in Prison

Figure 4-10. Percentage of the adult prison population who participated in vocational training, by prose, document, and quantitative literacy level: 2003

9

14

78

9

19

73

10

21

69

16

26

58

Percent no 

participation 

Percent 

current or past 

 participation 

0

20

20

40

40

60

60

80

80

100

100

Below Basic Basic Intermediate 

Literacy level 

Proficient 

Document 

10

13

77

10

18

72

10

22

68

10

21

69

Percent no 

participation 

Percent 

current or past 

participation 

0

20

20

40

40

60

60

80

80

100

100

Below Basic Basic Intermediate 

Literacy level 

Proficient 

Prose 

9

17

75

10

22

68

10

19

70

9

13

78

0

20

20

40

40

60

60

80

80

100

100

Percent no 

participation 

Percent 

current or past 

 participation 

Current participation Past participation No participation 

Below Basic Basic Intermediate 

Literacy level 

Proficient 

Quantitative

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons.Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this figure.

SOURCE: U. S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.
Skill Certification 

Information technology (IT) is a growing area of

employment. Certification programs, both within

prisons and for the general population, are becoming more commonly available. IT certification is

available in a variety of areas, including both basic

skills such as word processing and more advanced

skills such as computer networking. Other types of

job-related skill certification that are recognized by

a licensing board or an industry or professional association also provide credentials that are recognized

in the job market. Certification programs are sometimes offered by prisons as part of their vocational

education program.As shown in figure 4-11, some 6

percent of adults in prisons had some type of IT certification in 2003 (earned either in prison or prior

to their current incarceration), compared with 8

percent of adults living in households. The difference in the percentage of adults in prisons and

households who had other types of certification was

not statistically significant.

Within both the prison and households populations,

adults who had received IT or other certification had

higher prose, document, and quantitative literacy

than adults who had not received any certification

(figures 4-12 and 4-13). However, adults in the

prison population who had received IT or other certification had lower average literacy on all three scales

than adults in the household population who had

received the same type of certification.

54

Literacy Behind Bars

Figure 4-11. Percentage of the adult prison and

household populations who have

received skill certification: 2003

8*

Household

27

Household

6

Prison

25

Prison

IT certification Other certification

0

20

40

60

80

100

Percent 

Population

*Significantly different from prison population.

NOTE: Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons or households. Adults

who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent

of the prison sample and 3 percent of the household sample in 2003) are excluded from this figure.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for

Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Figure 4-12. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult

prison and household populations, by

receipt of information technology skill

certification: 2003

*Significantly different from prison population.

NOTE: Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons or households. Adults

who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent

of the prison sample and 3 percent of the household sample in 2003) are excluded from this figure.

SOURCE: U. S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for

Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

255

276

Prison

247

267

Prison

247

277

Prison

273*

291*

Household

269*

285*

Household

281*

302*

Household

0 

150 

200 

250 

Average score 

300 

350 

500 

No IT certification Received IT certification

Population

Prose Document Quantitative
In both the prison and households populations, the

differences in the percentage of adults in each quantitative literacy level who had received IT certification were not significant (figure 4-14). Within each

quantitative literacy level, the differences in the percentage of the prison and household populations

with IT certification were not statistically significant.

Within both the prison and household populations,

adults with Below Basic quantitative literacy were less

likely to have received certification other than IT

than adults with Basic or Intermediate quantitative literacy (figure 4-15).

55

Chapter 4: Education and Job Training in Prison

Figure 4-14. Percentage of the adult prison and

household populations in each quantitative literacy level, by receipt of information technology skill certification:

2003

NOTE:Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons or households. Adults

who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent

of the prison sample and 3 percent of the household sample in 2003) are excluded from this figure.

SOURCE: U. S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for

Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Percent 

0

20

40

60

80

100

Below Basic 

5

Basic 

7

Intermediate 

Literacy level 

9

Proficient 

12

2 8 10 9

Prison Household 

Figure 4-15. Percentage of the adult prison and

household populations in each quantitative literacy level, by receipt of other

job-related skill certification: 2003

NOTE: Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons or households. Adults

who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent

of the prison sample and 3 percent of the household sample in 2003) are excluded from this figure.

SOURCE: U. S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for

Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Prison Household 

19

28 30

16

26

32 32

26

Percent 

0

20

40

60

80

100

Below Basic Basic Intermediate 

Literacy level 

Proficient 

Figure 4-13. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult

prison and household populations, by

receipt of other job-related skill certification: 2003

*Significantly different from prison population.

NOTE: Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons or households. Adults

who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent

of the prison sample and 3 percent of the household sample in 2003) are excluded from this figure.

SOURCE: U. S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for

Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

252

270

Prison

269*

291*

Household

266*

283*

Household

277*

297*

Household

246

259

Prison

246

Prison

255

0 

150 

200 

250 

Average score 

300 

350 

500 

No other job certification Received other job certification

Population

Prose Document Quantitative
Summary

Forty-three percent of prison inmates entered prison

with a high school diploma or a GED/high school

equivalency certificate. An additional 4 percent of

prison inmates had earned their GED/high school

equivalency certificate since entering prison, and 5

percent were enrolled in academic classes that might

eventually lead to a GED/high school equivalency

certificate. Prison inmates with a high school diploma or a GED/high school equivalency certificate

had higher average prose, document, and quantitative

literacy than prison inmates with lower levels of educational attainment.

Many prisons offer vocational training as well as academic classes, and 29 percent of prison inmates had

participated in some sort of vocational training.

However, more inmates reported being on waiting

lists for these programs than were enrolled. Prison

inmates who had participated in vocational training

in the past had higher average prose, document, and

quantitative literacy than prison inmates who had

not participated in any sort of vocational training

program.

Certification programs are sometimes offered as

part of the vocational training provided in prisons.

Prison inmates who had received either information technology certification or some other type of

certification recognized by a licensing board or an

industry or professional association had higher average prose, document, and quantitative literacy than

prison inmates who did not have the same type of

certification. However, prison inmates who had

received either type of certification had lower average levels of prose, document, and quantitative literacy than adults in the household population with

similar certifications.

56

Literacy Behind Bars
Work and Literacy Experiences 

in Prison

Chapter 4 discussed the relationship between

literacy and education and job training

experiences in prison.This chapter discusses the relationship between literacy and other experiences in prison, including work assignments,

library access and use, computer use, and reading.

The relationship between literacy and these other

prison experiences is complex. Although inmates

who enter prison with higher literacy may be more

likely to use the library and computers, read, and

even get certain work assignments, participating in

any of these activities may help inmates improve

their literacy.

Prison Work Assignments

In 2003, some 68 percent of prison inmates had a

work assignment. Prison inmates who had a work

assignment had higher average prose and quantitative literacy than those who had no work assignment (figure 5-1). Seventy-two percent of incarcerated adults with Intermediate prose literacy had a

work assignment, compared with 66 percent of

prison inmates with Below Basic prose literacy (figure 5-2).

A variety of jobs are available in prisons. Some jobs

involve little or no reading and writing, such as

working in the prison laundry or on the

groundskeeping crew. Other jobs involve large

amounts of reading and writing, such as working in

a prison office. As part of their work assignments,

57

Prison Work Assignments

Library Use

Computer Use 

Reading Frequency

Summary

CHAPTER FIVE

5
inmates may encounter both prose texts and documents. Prison inmates who read every day as part of

their work assignment had higher average document

literacy than those prison inmates who never read as

part of their work assignment, but the differences in

prose literacy were not statistically significant (figure

5-3). Prison inmates who wrote every day as part of

their work assignment had higher average prose,

58

Literacy Behind Bars

Figure 5-1. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison

population, by current prison work

assignment: 2003

Currently has work assignment No work assignment

259 251 250 247 243

252

0 

150 

200 

250 

Average score 

300 

350 

500 

Prose Document Quantitative

Literacy scale

NOTE: Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not

be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent in 2003) are

excluded from this figure.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for

Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Figure 5-2. Percentage of the adult prison population who had a current prison work

assignment, by prose, document, and

quantitative literacy level: 2003

Below Basic Basic Intermediate Proficient 

66 63

72

80

63 68 69 67 63

70 71 69

Document Quantitative

Literacy scale

Prose

0

20

40

60

80

100

Percent 

NOTE: Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not

be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent in 2003) are

excluded from this figure.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for

Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.
document, and quantitative literacy than those who

never wrote or those who wrote less than every day

as part of their work assignment (figure 5-4).

Moreover, prison inmates who wrote less than every

day as part of their work assignment had lower average prose, document, and quantitative literacy than

those inmates who never wrote as part of their work

assignment.

59

Chapter 5: Work and Literacy Experiences in Prison

Figure 5-3. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison

population, by frequency of reading as

part of current prison work assignment:

2003

Every day Less than every day Never

257

246

257

246 251 249

263 256 255

0 

150 

200 

250 

Average score 

300 

350 

500 

Prose Document Quantitative

Literacy scale

NOTE: Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not

be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent in 2003) are

excluded from this figure.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for

Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Figure 5-4. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison

population, by frequency of writing as

part of current prison work assignment:

2003

245 239

259

248 251

238

271

261 264

0 

150 

200 

250 

Average score 

300 

350 

500 

Prose Document Quantitative

Literacy scale

Every day Less than every day Never

NOTE: Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not

be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent in 2003) are

excluded from this figure.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for

Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.
Although reading and writing on a regular basis as

part of a work assignment may lead to improvement

in an inmate’s literacy, it is also possible that inmates

who already have more-advanced reading and writing skills are more likely to be given work assignments that require more-frequent reading and writing. Figure 5-5 shows the percentage of incarcerated

adults at each prose literacy level who had a work

assignment that either did or did not require reading.

None of the differences across the literacy levels was

statistically significant.

However, there were significant differences in the

percentages of inmates in each literacy level who had

jobs that required writing regularly (figure 5-6).

Forty percent of inmates with Proficient prose literacy

and 29 percent of inmates with Intermediate prose literacy wrote every day, compared with 17 percent of

inmates with Below Basic prose literacy. Thirty-one

percent of inmates with Intermediate document literacy wrote every day, compared with 13 percent of

inmates with Below Basic document literacy.

60

Literacy Behind Bars

Figure 5-5. Percentage of the adult prison population who read as part of current prison

work assignment, by prose literacy

level: 2003

Every day Less than every day Never 

56 51 51 44

13

31

17

32

13

36

10

46

Percent did 

 not read 

Percent 

read 

0

20

20

40

40

60

60

80

80

100

100

Below Basic Basic Intermediate 

Literacy level 

Proficient 

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Adults are defined as people 16 years of

age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or

cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this figure.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for

Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.
61

Chapter 5: Work and Literacy Experiences in Prison

Figure 5-6. Percentage of the adult prison population who wrote as part of current prison work assignment, by

prose and document literacy level: 2003

64 54 54

69

23

13

25

20

15

31

4

28

Percent did 

 not write 

Percent 

wrote 

0

20

20

40

40

60

60

80

80

100

100

Below Basic Basic Intermediate 

Literacy level 

Proficient 

Document 

58 54 57 57

25

17

25

21

15

29

4

40

Percent did 

 not write 

Percent 

wrote 

0

20

20

40

40

60

60

80

80

100

100

Below Basic Basic Intermediate 

Literacy level 

Proficient 

Prose 

Every day Less than every day Never 

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons.Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this figure.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.
Library Use

Many prisons have a library that is available to

inmates, although the hours that the library is open,

the procedures that inmates must go through to

request a visit to the library or delivery of books from

the library, and the extent and variety of reading

material available vary.12 Prisoner inmates do not

always have easy access to a library, but 75 percent of

inmates reported that they used the prison library at

least once or twice a year. Although 59 percent of

prisoners were usually able to access the library within 2 days of wanting to do so, 22 percent had to wait

2 to 6 days, 10 percent had to wait 7 to 10 days, and

an additional 10 percent had to wait 10 days or more

(figure 5-7).

Library use can be related to literacy in two ways:

adults who have higher literacy levels may be more

likely to want to access the library and find things to

read, and adults who use the library and read more

frequently may improve their literacy levels.

As shown in figure 5-8, prison inmates who used the

library weekly or monthly had higher average prose

62

Literacy Behind Bars

Figure 5-8. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison

population, by frequency of library use:

2003

243

256 256

266

255 248

234 237 242

261

231

244 252 258 255

0 

150 

200 

250 

Average score 

300 

350 

500 

Prose Document Quantitative

Literacy scale

Daily Weekly Monthly Once or twice a year Never 

NOTE: Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not

be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent in 2003) are

excluded from this figure.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for

Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Figure 5-7. Percentage of the adult prison population who attempted to use the prison

library, by number of days it took to

obtain access: 2003

59

22

10 10

Less than

 2 days

2 to 6 days 7 to 10 days More than

 10 days

Number of days

0

20

40

60

80

100

Percent 

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Adults are defined as people 16 years of

age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or

cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this figure.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for

Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

12 The Directory of State Prison Librarians 2002 lists 826 state prisons

that have a librarian (Maryland Correctional Education Libraries

2002). In 2000, the most recent year for which data are available,

there were 1,320 state correctional facilities in the United States

(Stephan and Karlberg 2003).
literacy than prison inmates who never used the

library. Prison inmates who used the library daily had

higher average document literacy than prison

inmates who used the library less frequently (weekly,

monthly, once or twice a year, or never). Prison

inmates who used the library daily, weekly, or

monthly had higher average quantitative literacy than

prison inmates who never used the library, and

prison inmates who used the library weekly had

higher average quantitative literacy than prison

inmates who used the library once or twice a year.

Thiry-eight percent of prison inmates with Below

Basic prose literacy never used the library, compared

with 26 percent of prison inmates with Basic prose literacy, 19 percent with Intermediate prose literacy, and

19 percent with Proficient prose literacy (figure 5-9).

63

Chapter 5: Work and Literacy Experiences in Prison

Figure 5-9. Percentage of the adult prison population who used the library, by prose literacy level: 2003

Daily Weekly Monthly Once or twice a year Never 

38

26 19 19

9

19

23

11

10

19

33

12

10

19

42

11

6

18

48

10

Percent 

 did not 

 use library 

Percent 

used library 

0

20

20

40

40

60

60

80

80

100

100

Below Basic Basic Intermediate 

Literacy level 

Proficient 

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Adults are defined as people 16 years of

age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or

cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this figure.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for

Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.
Computer Use 

Although access to the Internet is typically prohibited within prisons, incarcerated adults may have

opportunities to use other computer programs and

features through academic classes, job training, work

assignments, or the prison library. As with library

use, the relationship between literacy and computer

use is probably a two-way process: inmates with

higher levels of literacy may be more likely to use a

computer, and inmates who use a computer regularly, particularly for tasks that involve reading and writing, may improve their literacy.

Incarcerated adults who used a computer for word

processing or for using a CD-ROM had higher average document and quantitative literacy than those

who never used a computer for these tasks (figure 5-

10). Inmates who used a spreadsheet had higher average prose literacy than inmates who did not.

64

Literacy Behind Bars

Figure 5-10. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison population, by computer use for various tasks: 2003

Word processing

265

Word processing

259

Word processing

258 255

Spreadsheet

275

256

247

Spreadsheet

257

248 248

Spreadsheet

263

248

CD-ROM

271

255

CD-ROM

260

247

CD-ROM

247

269

Used Never used

0 

150 

200 

250 

Average score 

300 

350 

500 

Prose Document Quantitative

Task

NOTE: Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent in 2003) are excluded from

this figure.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.
There were no statistically significant differences in

the percentage of inmates with Below Basic, Basic,

Intermediate, or Proficient prose literacy who wrote

using a word processing program (figure 5-11).There

were also no statistically significant differences in the

percentage of inmates with Below Basic, Basic,

Intermediate, or Proficient document literacy who

looked up information on a computer CD-ROM

(figure 5-12). A higher percentage of inmates with

Proficient than with Below Basic or Basic quantitative

literacy used a spreadsheet program (figure 5-13).

65

Chapter 5: Work and Literacy Experiences in Prison

Figure 5-11. Percentage of the adult prison population who wrote using a word processing program, by prose literacy level:

2003

8 12 15 12

Below Basic Basic Intermediate 

Literacy level 

Proficient 

0

20

40

60

80

100

Percent 

NOTE: Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not

be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent in 2003) are

excluded from this figure.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for

Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Figure 5-13. Percentage of the adult prison population who used a computer spreadsheet program, by quantitative literacy

level: 2003

4 6 7 13

Below Basic Basic Intermediate 

Literacy level 

Proficient 

0

20

40

60

80

100

Percent 

NOTE: Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not

be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent in 2003) are

excluded from this figure.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for

Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Figure 5-12. Percentage of the adult prison population who looked up information on a

computer CD-ROM, by document literacy level: 2003

3

8 11 6

Below Basic Basic Intermediate 

Literacy level 

Proficient 

0

20

40

60

80

100

Percent 

NOTE: Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not

be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent in 2003) are

excluded from this figure.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for

Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.
Reading Frequency

Incarcerated adults often have time they need to fill

up, and reading is one activity that fills time. Fortythree percent of prison inmates reported reading

newspapers and magazines every day, 50 percent read

books every day, and 33 percent read letters and

notes every day (figure 5-14). Only 10 percent of

prison inmates never read newspapers and magazines, and 8 percent never read books or letters and

notes. A higher percentage of prison inmates than

adults living in households read books every day (50

percent versus 32 percent),but adults living in households were more likely than incarcerated adults to

read newspapers and magazines or letters and notes

every day. Among adults in prisons and households,

97 percent and 96 percent, respectively, reported

reading one of these three types of reading material

at least occasionally.

66

Literacy Behind Bars

Figure 5-14. Percentage of the adult prison and household populations who read each of the following printed materials in English: newspapers or magazines, books, letters and notes, by frequency of reading: 2003

Prison Household

Frequency of reading

Every

 day

Few times

 a week

Once 

a week

Less than 

once a week

Every Never

 day

Few times

 a week

Once 

a week

Less than 

once a week

Never Every

 day

Few times

 a week

Once 

a week

Less than 

once a week

Never

Newspapers or magazines Books Letters and notes

8 13 14

33 33

8 12 8

22

50

7

13 10*

20*

51*

13*

25*

10*

20

32*

10 10 10

27

43

6* 9 12

25

48*

0

20

40

60

80

100

Percent 

*Significantly different from prison population.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons or households. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent of the prison sample and 3 percent of the household sample in 2003) are excluded from this figure.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.
Prison inmates who read newspapers and magazines,

books, or letters and notes had higher average prose

and document literacy than prison inmates who

never read at all, regardless of the frequency with

which they read (figure 5-15). Looked at another

way, a higher percentage of inmates with Below Basic

prose literacy never read newspapers and magazines,

books, or letters and notes than inmates with higher

levels of prose literacy (figure 5-16). Compared with

inmates who had Below Basic prose literacy, a higher

percentage of inmates with Basic or Intermediate prose

literacy read these materials every day.

67

Chapter 5: Work and Literacy Experiences in Prison

Figure 5-15. Average prose and document literacy scores of the adult prison population, by frequency of reading each of the following printed materials in English: newspapers or magazines, books, letters and

notes: 2003

208

254 249

263 263

192

249 252 257

266

201

249

261 260 263

216

245 252 250 250

191

246 243 248 255

189

246 251 253 253

Newspapers or magazines Books Letters and notes Newspapers or magazines Books Letters and notes

0 

150 

200 

250 

Average score 

300 

350 

500 

Printed material

Prose Document

Every day Few times a week Once a week Less than once a week Never 

NOTE: Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent in 2003) are excluded from

this figure.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.
68

Literacy Behind Bars

Figure 5-16. Percentage of the adult prison population who read each of the following printed materials in

English: newspapers or magazines, books, letters and notes, by prose literacy level: 2003

Less than Never 

once a week 

Few times Once a week 

a week 

Every day 

26

17

10

27

20

6

15

13

32

34

12

13

34

38

3 1

10

15

45

29

Percent did 

 not read 

Percent 

read 

0

20

20

40

40

60

60

80

80

100

100

Below Basic Basic Intermediate 

Literacy level 

Proficient 

Letters and notes 

32

7

10

13

17

29

11

9

29

44

5

9

8

31

48

5

10

15

23

47

Percent did 

 not read 

Percent 

read 

0

20

20

40

40

60

60

80

80

100

100

Below Basic Basic Intermediate 

Literacy level 

Proficient 

Newspapers or magazines 

30

14

10

22

25

5

13

9

21

52

2

10

7

22

59

2

7

14

28

50

Percent did 

 not read 

Percent 

read 

0

20

20

40

40

60

60

80

80

100

100

Below Basic Basic Intermediate 

Literacy level 

Proficient 

Books

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons.Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this figure.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.
Summary

In general, inmates who participated in activities that

required some reading or writing had average literacy either the same as or higher than the average literacy of inmates who did not participate in these

activities.

Prison inmates who had work assignments had

higher average prose and quantitative literacy than

inmates who did not have work assignments. Prison

inmates who used the prison library weekly or

monthly had higher average prose literacy than

prison inmates who never used the library. Prison

inmates who used a computer for word processing

or for using a CD-ROM had higher average document and quantitative literacy than inmates who

never used a computer for these things. Finally,

prison inmates who read newspapers and magazines,

books, or letters and notes had higher average prose

and document literacy than prison inmates who

never read, regardless of the frequency with which

they read.

A higher percentage of inmates with Proficient and

Intermediate prose literacy than with Below Basic prose

literacy had prison work assignments that required

writing every day. A higher percentage of inmates

with Basic, Intermediate, and Proficient prose literacy

than with Below Basic prose literacy used the library.

A higher percentage of prison inmates with Proficient

than with Below Basic or Basic quantitative literacy

used a spreadsheet program. Moreover, a higher percentage of inmates with Basic or Intermediate than

with Below Basic prose literacy read newspapers and

magazines, books, and letters and notes every day.

Although engaging in any of the activities discussed

above may improve an inmate’s literacy, it is also possible that inmates who already have higher levels of

literacy are more likely to participate in these activities. Readers are cautioned not to draw causal inferences based solely on the results presented here. As

discussed in chapter 1, many of the variables discussed

here are related to one another, and complex interactions and relationships have not been explored here.

69

Chapter 5: Work and Literacy Experiences in Prison

Criminal History and Current Offense

As discussed in chapter 2, the adult prison

population was over 50 percent larger in

2003 than 10 years previously. The 2003

prison population was also somewhat older and better educated than in 1992 (table 2-1).As discussed in

this chapter, there were also some changes in the

reasons adults were incarcerated, their length of

incarceration, and their previous criminal history.

Information presented in this chapter related to type

of offense, length of incarceration, expected date of

release, and criminal record are based on prison

inmates’ self-reports, not prison records.

In both 1992 and 2003, the commission of a violent

crime was the most common reason adults were

incarcerated (table 6-1).13 In 1992, some 44 percent

of prison inmates were incarcerated because they

had committed a violent crime; in 2003, some 47

percent of prison inmates had committed a violent

crime.There was a slight decline between 1992 and

2003 in the percentage of inmates who were

imprisoned because of property crimes. The percentage of inmates who had previously been sentenced to both probation and incarceration rose

from 48 percent in 1992 to 64 percent in 2003.

On average, prison sentences were longer in 2003

than in 1992 (table 6-1).The percentage of inmates

who expected to be incarcerated for a total of over

10 years (121 months or more) increased from 

16 percent in 1992 to 28 percent in 2003, and the

71

Type of Offense

Expected Length of

Incarceration

Expected Date of Release

Previous Criminal History

Summary 

CHAPTER SIX

6

13 See appendix B for a discussion of how different crimes were classified.
percentage who expected to be incarcerated for 5

years or less declined from 64 percent to 52 percent.

Despite these changes in expected total length of

incarceration, there were no statistically significant

changes between 1992 and 2003 in the percentage of

prison inmates who expected to be released within

the next 2 years—a population of particular interest

because they will need to find employment after

their release from prison. In 2003, some 62 percent

of prison inmates expected to be released within 2

years.

Type of Offense

Prison inmates are often sentenced for more than

one crime. For example, a drug dealer may shoot

another drug dealer and receive a sentence for both

drug dealing and murder. In this discussion of type of

offense, inmates are categorized by the offense for

which they received the longest sentence. In the

example just given, in which a drug dealer shoots

another drug dealer, if the crime for which the

inmate received the longest sentence was the murder,

that inmate’s offense would be categorized as violent.

If the drug dealing resulted in a longer sentence, the

inmate’s offense would be categorized as a drug

crime. More information on how offenses were classified is included in appendix B.

72

Literacy Behind Bars

Table 6-1. Percentage of the adult prison population in selected groups: 1992 and 2003

Characteristic 1992 2003

Type of offense

Violent 44 47

Property 18 15*

Drug 25 23

Public order 13 15

Expected length of incarceration

0–60 months 64 52*

61–120 months 20 21

121+ months 16 28*

Expected date of release

2 years or less 66 62

More than 2 years 34 38

Previous criminal history

None 21 16*

Probation only 14 11

Incarceration only 16 10*

Probation and incarceration 48 64*

*Significantly different from 1992.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Adults are defined as people 16 years of

age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or

cognitive or mental disabilities (3 percent in 1992 and 1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this

table. Results are based on inmates self report, not prison records.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for

Education Statistics, 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey and 2003 National Assessment of Adult

Literacy.
In 2003, inmates who were incarcerated because of a

property crime had higher average document 

literacy than inmates who were incarcerated for

other types of offenses (figure 6-1). There were no

statistically significant differences in prose or quantitative scores based on the type of offense that led to

incarceration.

As discussed in chapter 2, among the total adult

prison population, average prose and quantitative literacy increased between 1992 and 2003, but there

were no statistically significant changes in document

literacy (figure 2-1). Average prose scores and quantitative literacy also increased among inmates imprisoned for a violent crime (figure 6-1). Average prose

literacy increased among inmates who had committed a drug offense, and average quantitative literacy

increased among inmates imprisoned for a public

order offense. Reflecting the lack of significant

change in document literacy between 1992 and 2003

for the prison population as a whole, there were no

statistically significant changes in average document

literacy for any of the four types of offenses examined in figure 6-1.

Among inmates who had committed a violent crime,

the percentage with Below Basic literacy declined

from 23 percent to 17 percent on the prose scale,

24 percent to 14 percent on the document scale, and

52 percent to 39 percent on the quantitative scale

73

Chapter 6: Criminal History and Current Offense

Figure 6-1. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison population, by type of

offense: 1992 and 2003

Violent Property Drug Public order

247

256* 257 263

243

255*

245

258

Violent Property Drug Public order

241 247 251 258

240 247 240 248

Violent Property Drug Public order

231

249* 243

253

233

247

233

251*

1992 2003

Prose Document Quantitative

0 

150 

200 

250 

Average score 

300 

350 

500 

Type of offense

*Significantly different from 1992.

NOTE: Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (3 percent in 1992 and 1 percent in

2003) are excluded from this figure.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey and 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.
(figure 6-2). The percentage of inmates who had

committed violent crimes and had Intermediate prose

literacy rose from 34 percent to 41 percent, and the

percentage of inmates who had committed violent

crimes and had Basic quantitative literacy rose from 31

percent to 40 percent.Among inmates who had committed property, drug, or public order crimes, there

were no statistically significant changes in the percentage in each prose, document, and quantitative literacy level.

74

Literacy Behind Bars

Figure 6-2. Percentage of the adult prison population in each prose, document, and quantitative literacy level,

by type of offense: 1992 and 2003

2003 

1992 Public order

2003 

1992 Drug

2003 

1992 

Property

2003 

1992 

Violent

80 40 20 60 0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent Below Basic Percent Basic and above 

Type of offense

 and year

Type of offense

 and year

Type of offense

 and year

23 40 34 3

17* 40 41* 3

16 40 41 3

11 41 46 3

26 39 33 3

19 38 39 5

23 41 34 2

16 39 42 3

Prose

2003 

1992 Public order

2003 

1992 Drug

2003 

1992 

Property

2003 

1992 

Violent

80 40 20 60 0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent Below Basic Percent Basic and above 

24 33 40 3

14* 38 47 1

17 31 49 3

9 31 58 2

24 33 39 4

16 36 47 2

22 35 43 1

18 33 46 3

Document

2003 

1992 Public order

2003 

1992 Drug

2003 

1992 

Property

2003 

1992 

Violent

80 40 20 60 0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent Below Basic Percent Basic and above 

Below Basic Basic Intermediate Proficient

52 31 15 3

39* 40* 19 2

44 37 17 2

35 43 21 2

49 31 17 3

41 38 19 2

51 31 15 3

39 37 21 3

Quantitative

*Significantly different from 1992.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons.Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (3 percent in 1992 and 1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this figure.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey and 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.
Expected Length of Incarceration

Expected length of incarceration was calculated from

the time inmates entered prison to the time they

expected to be released.The number represents their

total expected length of incarceration, not the number of months they had remaining on their sentence.

In 2003, there were no statistically significant differences in average prose, document, or quantitative literacy among inmates based on their expected length

of incarceration (figure 6-3).

Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy

increased between 1992 and 2003 for inmates who

expected to be incarcerated for over 10 years (121 or

more months), starting from when they were first

incarcerated (figure 6-3).Average prose and quantitative literacy also increased for inmates who expected

to be incarcerated for a total of 5 years or less (0 to

60 months).Average document literacy increased for

inmates who expected to be incarcerated for over 5

years but not more than 10 years (61 to 120 months).

Among prison inmates who expected to be imprisoned for 5 years or less (0 to 60 months), between

1992 and 2003 the percentage with Below Basic prose

literacy declined from 21 percent to 15 percent and

the percentage with Below Basic quantitative literacy

declined from 49 percent to 40 percent (figure 6-4).

The percentage with Intermediate quantitative literacy increased from 16 percent to 21 percent.

Among prison inmates who expected to be imprisoned for over 5 years but not more than 10 years (61

to 120 months), between 1992 and 2003 the percentage with Below Basic document literacy decreased

from 27 percent to 14 percent and the percentage

with Intermediate document literacy increased from

75

Chapter 6: Criminal History and Current Offense

Figure 6-3. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison population, by expected length of incarceration: 1992 and 2003

0–60 months 61–120 months 121+ months

250 258* 252 254

242

258*

0–60 months 61–120 months 121+ months

248 248

239

253*

233

248*

0–60 months 61–120 months 121+ months

235

249*

240

252

223

247*

1992 2003

Prose Document Quantitative

0 

150 

200 

250 

Average score 

300 

350 

500 

Expected length of incarceration

*Significantly different from 1992.

NOTE: Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (3 percent in 1992 and 1 percent in

2003) are excluded from this figure.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey and 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.
37 percent to 50 percent.The percentage with Basic

quantitative literacy increased from 31 percent to 42

percent.

Among prison inmates who expected to be imprisoned for over 10 years (121 months or more), the

percentage with Below Basic quantitative literacy

decreased from 58 percent to 39 percent, the percentage with Basic quantitative literacy increased

from 31 percent to 42 percent, and the percentage

with Intermediate quantitative literacy increased from

10 percent to 17 percent.The percentage with Below

Basic document literacy decreased from 29 percent to

13 percent and the percentage with Intermediate prose

literacy increased from 30 percent to 43 percent.

76

Literacy Behind Bars

Figure 6-4. Percentage of the adult prison population in each prose, document, and quantitative literacy level,

by expected length of incarceration: 1992 and 2003

2003 

1992 

2003 

1992 

2003 

1992 

121+ months

61–120 months

0–60 months

80 40 20 60 0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent Below Basic Percent Basic and above 

Length of sentence 

and year 

21 39 37 3

15* 40 42 3

22 37 37 5

17 41 39 3

24 45 30 1

16 39 43* 3

Prose

18 32 47 3

16 35 47 2

27 32 37 4

14* 34 50* 3

29 37 33 2

13* 38 48 1

2003 

1992 

2003 

1992 

2003 

1992 

121+ months

61–120 months

0–60 months

80 40 20 60 0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent Below Basic Percent Basic and above 

Length of sentence 

and year 

Document

49 33 16 3

40* 37 21* 3

46 31 19 3

37 42* 19 2

58 31 10 1

39* 42* 17* 2

2003 

1992 

2003 

1992 

2003 

1992 

121+ months

61–120 months

0–60 months

80 40 20 60 0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent Below Basic Percent Basic and above 

Length of sentence 

and year 

Below Basic Basic Intermediate Proficient

Quantitative

*Significantly different from 1992.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons.Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (3 percent in 1992 and 1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this figure.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey and 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.
Expected Date of Release 

The literacy of inmates who are near their expected

date of release may be of particular concern because

they will soon need to do such things as rejoin their

families and find a job. As shown in table 6-1, 74

percent of inmates had been incarcerated previously

(64 percent had been sentenced to both incarceration and probation and an additional 10 percent had

been sentenced to incarceration alone). Without

adequate literacy skills, adjusting to life outside of

prison could be even more difficult for released

inmates.

As was discussed in chapter 3, prison inmates had

lower average prose, document, and quantitative literacy than adults living in households (figure 3-1).

This would be of somewhat less concern if prison

inmates who expected to be released within 2 years

had higher literacy than inmates with more time left

to serve on their sentences, but that was not the case.

In 2003, there was no difference in average prose,

document, and quantitative literacy between prison

inmates with 2 years or less remaining on their sentence and inmates who did not expect to be released

within 2 years (figure 6-5).

Among inmates with 2 years or less remaining on

their sentences,average quantitative literacy increased

between 1992 and 2003, but the changes in average

prose and document literacy were not statistically

significant (figure 6-5).Among inmates who did not

expect to be released within 2 years, both average

prose and average quantitative scores increased.

77

Chapter 6: Criminal History and Current Offense

Figure 6-5. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison

population, by expected date of release:

1992 and 2003

2 years

 or less

More than

 2 years

251 257

247

257*

2 years

 or less

More than

 2 years

246 249

240 248

2 years

 or less

More than

 2 years

235

249*

233

249*

1992 2003

0 

150 

200 

250 

Average score 

300 

350 

500 Prose Document Quantitative

Expected date of release

*Significantly different from 1992.

NOTE: Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not

be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (3 percent in 1992 and 1

percent in 2003) are excluded from this figure.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for

Education Statistics, 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey and 2003 National Assessment of Adult

Literacy.
Among prison inmates who expected to be released

in 2 years or less, the percentage with the lowest literacy, Below Basic, did decrease from 22 percent to 15

percent on the prose scale and from 49 percent to 40

percent on the quantitative scale (figure 6-6).

However, although the percentages of inmates who

had Below Basic prose literacy and expected to be

released within 2 years decreased, because of the

increase in the size of the prison population, the

number of inmates in this category was approximately 130,000 in both years.The percentage with Basic

and Intermediate quantitative literacy increased.

Among inmates who expected to serve additional

time of more than 2 years, the percentage with Below

Basic document and quantitative literacy decreased,

the percentage with Intermediate prose literacy

increased, and the percentage with Basic quantitative

literacy increased.

78

Literacy Behind Bars

Figure 6-6. Percentage of the adult prison population in each prose, document, and

quantitative literacy level, by expected

date of release: 1992 and 2003

2003 

More than 1992 

 2 years

2003 

2 years 1992 

or less

80 40 20 60 0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent Below Basic Percent Basic and above 

Expected date of 

release and year 

Prose

22 38 37 4

15* 41 41 3

22 42 34 2

17 37 42* 4

2003 

More than 1992 

 2 years

2003 

2 years 1992 

or less

Expected date of 

release and year 

80 40 20 60 0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent Below Basic Percent Basic and above 

Document

20 32 44 3

15 35 48 2

25 33 39 3

14* 36 49 1

2003 

More than 1992 

 2 years

2003 

2 years 1992 

or less

Expected date of 

release and year 

80 40 20 60 0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent Below Basic Percent Basic and above 

Quantitative

49 32 16 3

40* 38* 20* 2

51 31 15 2

38* 41* 19 2

Below Basic Basic Intermediate Proficient 

*Significantly different from 1992.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Adults are defined as people 16 years of

age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or

cognitive or mental disabilities (3 percent in 1992 and 1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this

figure.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for

Education Statistics, 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey and 2003 National Assessment of Adult

Literacy.
Previous Criminal History

In 2003, 16 percent of prison inmates had never previously been incarcerated or on probation, 11 percent had been on probation only, 10 percent had

been incarcerated only, and 64 percent had been

both incarcerated and on probation (table 6-1). In

2003, inmates who had previously been incarcerated

only had lower average document literacy than

inmates who had previously been on probation only

or been both on probation and incarcerated (figure

6-7).There were no other statistically significant differences based on criminal history.

Between 1992 and 2003, average prose and quantitative literacy increased among inmates who had

previously been sentenced to both probation and

incarceration, and average document literacy

increased among inmates who had previously been

sentenced to probation only (figure 6-7). The only

changes in the distribution of inmates across the literacy levels were that a lower percentage of inmates

79

Chapter 6: Criminal History and Current Offense

Figure 6-7. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison population, by previous criminal history: 1992 and 2003

None Probation 

only

Incarceration 

only

Probation and 

incarceration

252 248 249

259

244 252 248

258*

None Probation 

only

Incarceration 

only

Probation and 

incarceration

249 248 242

256*

238 237 243 249

None Probation 

only

Incarceration 

only

Probation and 

incarceration

240

250

228

257*

241 249

231

247*

1992 2003

Prose Document Quantitative

0 

150 

200 

250 

Average score 

300 

350 

500 

Previous criminal history

*Significantly different from 1992.

NOTE: Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (3 percent in 1992 and 1 percent in

2003) are excluded from this figure.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey and 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.
who had previously been sentenced to both incarceration and probation had Below Basic prose literacy in 2003 than in 1992 (13 percent versus 21 percent) and a higher percentage had Intermediate prose

literacy in 2003 than in 1992 (43 percent versus 35

percent) (figure 6-8).

Summary 14

When compared with the prison population in

1992, the prison population in 2003 included a higher percentage of inmates who expected to be incarcerated for more than 10 years (16 percent versus 28

percent). Among these inmates who expected to be

incarcerated for more than 10 years, average prose,

document, and quantitative literacy was higher in

2003 than in 1992.

The 2003 prison population also included a higher

percentage of inmates who had previously been sentenced to both incarceration and probation (48 percent versus 64 percent). Between 1992 and 2003,

average prose and quantitative literacy increased

among inmates who had previously been sentenced

to both probation and incarceration and average document literacy increased among inmates who had

been sentenced to probation only.

The most common reason for incarceration in both

1992 and 2003 was the commission of a violent

crime. Between 1992 and 2003, average prose and

quantitative literacy increased among inmates who

were imprisoned because of a violent crime. On all

three scales, the percentage of inmates who had been

convicted of a violent crime and had Below Basic literacy declined.

Inmates who expect to be released within the next 2

years are of particular interest because they will need

to find jobs and rejoin their families and communities. There were no statistically significant changes

between 1992 and 2003 in the percentage of inmates

with 2 years or less left to serve on their sentences.

Among inmates with 2 years or less remaining on

their sentences, average quantitative literacy

increased, but the changes in average prose and document literacy were not significant.

80

Literacy Behind Bars

Figure 6-8. Percentage of the adult prison population in each prose literacy level, by previous criminal history: 1992 and 2003

2003 

1992 Probation and

 incarceration

2003 

1992 Incarceration

 only

2003 

1992 

Probation only

2003 

1992 

None

80 40 20 60 0 20 40 60 80 100

Percent Below Basic Percent Basic and above 

Previous criminal

 history and year

Below Basic Basic Intermediate Proficient

22 37 37 5

29

23 38 34 4

14 40 43 3

27 37 33 4

21 38 37 5

21 42 35 2

13* 42 43* 2

31 33 8

*Significantly different from 1992.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Adults are defined as people 16 years of

age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or

cognitive or mental disabilities (3 percent in 1992 and 1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this

figure.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for

Education Statistics, 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey and 2003 National Assessment of Adult

Literacy.

14 Information presented in this chapter related to type of offense,

length of incarceration,expected date of release,and criminal record

are based on prison inmates’ self-reports, not prison records.
81

REFERENCES

Binder, D.A. (1983). On the Variances of Asymptotically

Normal Estimates for Complex Surveys. International

Statistical Review, 51(3), 279-92.

Bureau of Justice Statistics. (1997). Correctional Populations in

the United States, 1997. U.S. Department of Justice.

Washington, DC:Author.

Clayton, S.L. (2005). Jail Inmates Bake Their Way to

Successful Reentry. Corrections Today, 67(2): 78-81.

Cohen,T. H., and Reaves, B.A. (2006). Felony Defendants in

Large Urban Counties, 2002. U.S. Department of Justice.

Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Glaze, L., and Palla, S. (2005). Probation and Parole in the

United States, 2004. U.S. Department of Justice.

Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Hambleton, R.K., and Swaminathan, H. (1985). Item

Response Theory: Principles and Applications. Boston:

Kluwer-Nijhoff Publishing.

Harlow, C. (2003). Education and Correctional Populations. U.S.

Department of Justice.Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice

Statistics.

Harrison, P.M., and Beck,A.J. (2005). Prisoners in 2004. U.S.

Department of Justice.Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice

Statistics.

Hauser, R.M., Edley, C.F. Jr., Koenig, J.A., and Elliott, S.W.

(Eds.). (2005). Measuring Literacy: Performance Levels for

Adults, Interim Report. Washington, DC: National

Academies Press.

References
Kutner, M., Greenberg,E.,and Baer, J. (2005). A First Look at the Literacy of America’s Adults in the 21st Century

(NCES 2006–470). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education

Statistics.

Kutner, M., Greenberg, E., Jin,Y., Boyle, B., Hsu,Y., and Dunleavy, E. (2007). Literacy in Everyday Life: Results

From the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NCES 2007–480). U.S. Department of Education.

Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

Little, R.J.A., and Rubin, D.B. (2002). Statistical Analysis with Missing Data. Hoboken, New Jersey:Wiley.

Maryland Correctional Education Libraries. (2002). Directory of State Prison Librarians 2002. Baltimore: MD:

Author.

Rock, D., and Yamamoto, K. (2001). Construct Validity of the Adult Literacy Scales. In U.S. Department of

Education. National Center for Education Statistics. Technical Report and Data File User’s Manual for the 1992

National Adult Literacy Survey,NCES 2001–457,by I.Kirsch,K.Yamamoto,N.Norris,D.Rock,A.Jungeblut,

P. O’Reilly, M. Berlin, L. Mohadjer, J. Waksberg, H. Goskel, J. Burke, S. Rieger, J. Green, M. Klein, A.

Campbell, L. Jenkins,A. Kolstad, P. Mosenthal, and S. Baldi.

Snell,T. (1995). Correctional Populations in the United States, 1993. U.S. Department of Justice.Washington, DC:

Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Stephan, J., and Karberg, J (2003). Census of State and Federal Correctional Facilities, 2000. U.S. Department of

Justice,Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Vacca, J.S. (2004). Educated Prisoners Are Less Likely to Return to Prison. Journal of Correctional Education,

55(4): 297-305.

Welsh, M.F. (2002).The Effects of the Elimination of Pell Grant Eligibility for State Prison Inmates. Journal of

Correctional Education, 53(4): 154–58

White, S., and Dillow, S. (2005). Key Concepts and Features of the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy

(NCES 2006-471). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education

Statistics.

82

Literacy Behind Bars
APPENDIX A

A

Sample Assessment Questions

Respondents who participated in the 2003

assessment were asked to complete prose,

document, and quantitative literacy tasks

of varying levels of difficulty. The sample questions on the following pages illustrate the types of

tasks used to measure the literacy of America’s

adults.These questions were originally developed

for the 1992 survey and reused in 2003.The same

literacy tasks were used for the household and

prison samples.

Consistent with the design of the assessment, each

sample question appears before the text or document needed to answer the question.The percentage of respondents who answered the question

correctly is reported separately for the household

and prison samples.The percentage of respondents

at each literacy level who answered each question

correctly is reported for the combined household

and prison sample only.1

More information about the sample assessment

questions can be found on the Internet at

http://nces.ed.gov/naal.

83

1 As discussed in appendix C, each respondent was presented with 3 of the

12 blocks of questions.Therefore, the number of respondents for each question was smaller than the total sample size. Because of this, and because of the

small number of prison inmates in some of the literacy levels, the sample size

does not permit reporting percent correct separately for the prison population by literacy level.
84

Literacy Behind Bars

Prose Literacy Question

Refer to the article on the next page to answer the following question.

According to the brochure, why is it difficult for people to know if they have high blood pressure?

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

Correct answer

All Prison Inmates All Adults in Households Below Basic Basic Intermediate Proficient

69 74 11 70 96 100

NOTE: Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons or households. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (3 percent in 2003) are

excluded from these data.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Any statement such as the following:

Symptoms are not usually present

High blood pressure is silent

Percentage of adults who answered the question correctly, 2003
85

Appendix A: Sample Assessment Questions
86

Literacy Behind Bars

Prose Literacy Question

Refer to the article on the next page to answer the following question.

What is the purpose of the Se Habla Español expo?

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________________________

Any statement such as the following:

To enable people to better serve and sell to the Hispanic community

To improve marketing strategies to the Hispanic community

To enable people to establish contacts to serve the Hispanic community

Correct answer

All Prison Inmates All Adults in Households Below Basic Basic Intermediate Proficient

12 16 # 3 16 60

# Rounds to zero.

NOTE: Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons or households. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (3 percent in 2003) are

excluded from these data.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Percentage of adults who answered the question correctly, 2003
87

Appendix A: Sample Assessment Questions
88

Literacy Behind Bars

Junior high teachers

Correct answer

Seventy-eight percent of what specific group agree that their school does a good job of encouraging

parental involvement in educational areas?

________________________________________________________________________________

Reduced from original copy

All Prison Inmates All Adults in Households Below Basic Basic Intermediate Proficient

18 36 # 4 47 98

# Rounds to zero.

NOTE: Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons or households. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (3 percent in 2003) are

excluded from these data.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Document Literacy Question

Percentage of adults who answered the question correctly, 2003
89

Appendix A: Sample Assessment Questions

Suppose that you had your oil tank filled with 140.0 gallons of oil, as indicated on the bill, and you

wanted to take advantage of the five cents ($.05) per gallon deduction.

1. Figure out how much the deduction would be if you paid the bill within 10 days. Enter the

amount of the deduction on the bill in the space provided.

________________________________________________________________________________

Reduced from original copy

$7.00

Correct answer

All Prison Inmates All Adults in Households Below Basic Basic Intermediate Proficient

38 52 1 40 92 100

NOTE: Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons or households. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (3 percent in 2003) are

excluded from these data.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Quantitative Literacy Question

Percentage of adults who answered the question correctly, 2003
90

Literacy Behind Bars

Refer to the form on the next page to answer the following question.

Use the following information to fill in the receipt for certified mail.Then fill in the "TOTAL

Postage and Fees" line.

● You are sending a package to Doris Carter.

● Her address is 19 Main Street,Augusta, GA 30901.

● The postage for the package is $1.86.

● The fee for certified mail is $0.75.

This is an example of a task that was scored in three separate parts and treated as three separate questions.

The first two questions were included on the document scale and the third question was included on the quantitative scale.

Question 1 (Document): Enters name and address correctly. No penalty for misspelling.

Correct answer

Correct answer

Question 3 (Quantitative): Either of the following:

Correctly totals postage and fees: $2.61

Correctly totals incorrect fees entered on form

Question 2 (Document): Enters $1.86 and $0.75 on the postage and certified fee lines, respectively.

Correct answer

All Prison Inmates All Adults in Households Below Basic Basic Intermediate Proficient

66 65 8 54 86 97

NOTE: Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons or households. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (3 percent in 2003) are

excluded from these data.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Percentage of adults who answered the question correctly, 2003

All Prison Inmates All Adults in Households Below Basic Basic Intermediate Proficient

68 76 13 73 96 100

NOTE: Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons or households. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (3 percent in 2003) are

excluded from these data.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Percentage of adults who answered the question correctly, 2003

All Prison Inmates All Adults in Households Below Basic Basic Intermediate Proficient

72 78 33 88 96 99

NOTE: Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons or households. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (3 percent in 2003) are

excluded from these data.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Percentage of adults who answered the question correctly, 2003

Document and Quantitative Literacy Questions
91

Appendix A: Sample Assessment Questions

Definitions of All Subpopulations 

and Background Variables Reported 

S

ome background variables were included in

the analyses in more than one chapter.Those

variables are listed under the chapter where

they first appeared. For the exact wording of background questions, see http://nces.ed.gov/naal.

Chapter 2

Prison Population

The 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy

included a nationally representative probability

sample of inmates age 16 and older in federal and

state prisons. Prison data collection was conducted

from March through July of 2004.

Household Population

The 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy

included a nationally representative probability

sample of adults age 16 and older living in households.The household sample also included adults

in six states that chose to participate in a concurrent State Assessment of Adult Literacy:

Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri,

Oklahoma, and New York. Each sample was

weighted to represent its share of the total population of the United States. Household data collection was conducted from March 2003 through

February 2004.

93

toc

CHAPTER ONE APPENDIX B

B1
Race and Ethnicity

In 2003, all respondents were asked two or three

questions about their race and ethnicity. The first

question asked them to indicate whether they were

Hispanic or Latino.

If a respondent answered that he or she was Hispanic

or Latino, the respondent was asked to choose one or

more of the following groups to describe his or her

Hispanic origin:

■ Mexican, Mexican American, or Chicano

■ Puerto Rican or Puerto Rican American

■ Cuban or Cuban American

■ Central or South American

■ Other Hispanic or Latino background

Respondents who identified more than one of the

groups to describe their Hispanic origin, were classified as “Other Hispanic or Latino background.”

Then, all respondents, including those who indicated

they were Hispanic or Latino, were asked to choose

one or more of the following groups to describe

themselves:

■ White

■ Black or African American

■ Asian

■ American Indian or Alaskan Native

■ Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander

Individuals who responded yes to the first question

were coded as Hispanic, regardless of their answer to

the second question. Individuals who identified more

than one group on the second question were coded

as Multiracial. Respondents of Native Hawaiian or

Pacific Islander origin were grouped with those of

Asian origin.The White, Black, and Hispanic groups

are reported separately.The interviewer recorded the

race/ethnicity of respondents who refused to answer

the question.

In 1992, the race and ethnicity questions were somewhat different. Respondents were first asked to

choose one race from among the following:

■ White

■ Black (African American)

■ American Indian

■ Alaskan Native

■ Asian

■ Other

They were then asked if they were of Spanish or

Hispanic origin or descent. If they indicated they

were, they were asked to choose from among the

same groups as on the 2003 survey to describe their

Hispanic ethnicity.

Because respondents in 2003 were not offered an

“other” category to describe their race and respondents in 1992 were limited to choosing one race,

caution should be exercised when comparing 1992

and 2003 results.

Gender

Interviewers recorded the gender of each respondent.

Highest Educational Attainment

Respondents were asked to indicate the highest level

of education they had completed. The following

options were provided:

■ Still in high school (asked in household survey

only; not applicable to prison population) 

■ Less than high school (0-8 years)

■ Some high school (9-12 years but did not graduate)

■ GED or high school equivalency

■ High school graduate

■ Vocational, trade, or business school after high

school

94

Literacy Behind Bars
■ College: less than 2 years

■ College:Associate’s degree (A.A.)

■ College: 2 or more years, no degree

■ College graduate (B.A. or B.S.)

■ Postgraduate, no degree

■ Postgraduate degree (M.S., M.A., Ph.D., M.D.,

etc.)

Respondents who reported less than high school or

some high school were asked how many years of

education they had completed. Because of the small

number of inmates with education beyond a

GED/high school equivalency certificate or a high

school diploma, respondents who indicated that they

had any education beyond high school were grouped

in a single category labeled “postsecondary.”

Age

All respondents were asked to report their birthdates,

and this information was used to calculate their age.

Age was collapsed into the following categories: 16

to 24, 25 to 39, 40 and older.

Language Spoken Before Starting School

All respondents were asked what language or languages they learned to speak before starting school.

Their responses were then used to divide respondents into three groups: English only, English and

other language (including Spanish), Other only

(including Spanish).

Parents’ Educational Background

All respondents were asked about the highest level of

education completed by their mother and father.The

response options provided were the same as the

response options for the respondent educational

attainment question. Parents’ educational background was coded on the basis of whichever parent

had the higher level of educational attainment.

Because of the small number of inmates whose parents had education beyond high school, all responses

that indicated postsecondary education were

grouped into a single category.

Chapter 3

Veteran’s Status

Respondents were asked whether they had ever

served on active duty in the U.S.Armed Forces.

Overall Health

Respondents were asked how, in general, they would

rate their overall health.They were given the following response options: excellent, very good, good, fair,

poor.

Learning Disability

Respondents were asked whether they had ever been

diagnosed or identified as having a learning disability.

Date Incarcerated

Respondents were asked the date they were admitted to prison most recently.

Chapter 4

Completion of Any Additional Education in Prison

Inmates were asked whether they had completed any

additional education since their most recent admission to prison.

Expected Date of Release

Inmates were asked whether they had a definite date

on which they expected to be released,in what month

and year they would be released, or whether they

expected to ever be released from prison. Expected

date of release was categorized as 2 years or less or

95

Appendix B: Definitions of All Subpopulations and Background Variables Reported
more than 2 years from the date of the interview.The

sample size did not support reporting separately on

inmates who did not expect to be released, so they

were included in the “more than 2 years” category.

GED Earned While in Prison

Inmates were asked to indicate the highest level of

education they had completed prior to their most

recent admission to prison and after their admission

to prison. They were also asked whether they were

currently enrolled in any academic classes and how

long ago they last took a class to improve their basic

skills. Inmates were placed in the following categories: GED or high school diploma earned prior to

prison; GED or high school diploma earned in

prison; currently enrolled in academic or basic skill

classes; no GED or high school diploma earned and

not currently enrolled academic or basic skill classes.

Inmates on a Waiting List for Academic Classes

Inmates were asked whether they were currently

enrolled in classes and how many hours they spent in

any class as a student during the past week. If inmates

indicated they were not currently enrolled in classes,

they were asked whether they were on a waiting list

for academic classes.

Length of Time in Prison Vocational Training

Inmates were asked whether since their most recent

admission to prison they had been a student in a

vocational training program, excluding prison work

assignments, and how long they had spent altogether

in vocational training. Inmates were grouped according to the length of time in prison vocational training: no participation, less than 6 months, 6 to 12

months, 1 year or more.

Participation in Reading-, Writing-, Mathematics-,

Computer-, and Communication-Related Job Training

Inmates were asked in separate questions whether

during the past year they had participated in any

training or education, including courses, workshops,

formal on-the-job training, or apprenticeships,

intended to improve their English reading skills,

writing skills, arithmetic or mathematics skills, computer skills, or communication skills.

Vocational Training Participation 

Inmates were asked whether since their most recent

admission to prison they had been a student in a

vocational training program, excluding prison work

assignments, and whether they were currently students in a vocational training program. Inmates were

identified as no participation, past participation, or

current participation in vocation training in prison.

Inmates on a Waiting List for Vocational Training

Inmates were asked whether they were currently

enrolled in a vocational training program and

whether they were on a waiting list for any vocational training programs.

Information Technology (IT) Certification

All respondents were asked whether they had

received any type of information technology skill

certification sponsored by a hardware or software

manufacturer or an industry or professional association and whether they had passed a test to get the

certification.Those who answered yes to both questions were counted as receiving IT certification.

Inmates who answered yes to the question asking

whether they had prepared for the test with a class

offered in prison, jail, or other correctional facility

were categorized as having obtained the certification

while incarcerated.

96

Literacy Behind Bars
Other Job Certification

All respondents were asked whether they had ever

received any type of job-related skill certification

recognized by a licensing board or an industry or

professional association other than information technology and whether they had passed a test to get the

certification.Those who answered yes to both questions were counted as receiving other job certification. Inmates who answered yes to the question asking whether they had prepared for the test with a

class offered in prison, jail, or other correctional facility were categorized as having obtained the certification while incarcerated.

Chapter 5

Work Assignment

Inmates were asked whether they currently had a

prison work assignment.

Reading as Part of Prison Work Assignment

Inmates were asked to indicate how often they read

as part of their current jobs in prison. They were

given the following options: every day, a few times a

week, once a week, less than once a week, never.

Writing as Part of Prison Work Assignment

Inmates were asked to indicate how often they wrote

as part of their current jobs in prison. They were

given the following options: every day, a few times a

week, once a week, less than once a week, never.

Library Access

Inmates were asked to indicate how often they used

the services of a library for any reason. They were

given the following options: every day, a few times a

week, once a week, less than once a week, never.

Computer Usage

Respondents were asked whether they ever used a

computer. If they did, in separate questions they were

asked to indicate how often they used a word processing program to write, used a spreadsheet program, or

looked up information on a CD-ROM. They were

given the following options: never, less than once a

week, once a week, a few times a week, every day.

Literacy Practices

Respondents were asked to indicate how often they

read newspapers or magazines in English, books in

English, and letters and notes in English in separate

questions. They were given the following options:

never, less than once a week, once a week, a few

times a week, every day.

Chapter 62

Type of Offense

Inmates were asked to indicate for which offenses

they were currently in prison. If they indicated more

than one, they were asked for which of these offenses they had received the longest sentence.The coding of this variable was based on the offense for

which the inmate received the longest sentence.

Offenses were coded as follows:

Violent: murder, negligent manslaughter, kidnapping, rape, robbery, assault, other violent

crime

Property: burglary, larceny, motor vehicle theft,

arson, fraud, stolen property, other property

crime

97

Appendix B: Definitions of All Subpopulations and Background Variables Reported

2 The variable coding in chapter 6 follows the conventions used by

the Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice. For

example, see Cohen and Reaves (2006).
Drug: possession of drugs, trafficking drugs, other

drugs

Public order: escape from custody, flight to avoid

prosecution, weapon offense, parole violation, probation violation, rioting, habitual

offender, contempt of court, offenses against

courts, legislatures, and commissions, traffic

offenses, driving while intoxicated, driving

under the influence, family-related offenses,

drunkenness/vagrancy/disorderly conduct,

morals/decency, immigration violations,

obstruction of law enforcement, invasion of

privacy, commercialized vice, contribution to

the delinquency of a minor, liquor law violations, other public order offenses, bribery

and conflict of interest, regulatory offenses

(federal only), tax law (federal only), racketeering/extortion (federal only)

Previous Criminal History

Inmates were asked whether they had ever served 

time in prison, jail, or some other correctional facility 

as a juvenile or an adult before their most recent

admission to prison and whether they had ever been

placed on probation, either as a juvenile or as an adult.

Responses were coded into the following categories:

none, probation only, previous incarceration only, probation and previous incarceration.

Length of Incarceration

Inmates were asked to indicate in what month and

year they were admitted to prison most recently

and whether they had a definite date on which they

expected to be released. If they answered yes to having a definite date to be released, they were asked in

what month and year they would be released.Those

who did not have a definite date to be released were

asked the month and year of their earliest possible

release date.Their responses to these questions were

used to calculate the length of their incarceration:

0-60 months, 61-120 months, 121 or more

months/do not expect to be released. Because of

the sample size, the last two categories were collapsed for reporting.

98

Literacy Behind Bars
99

toc

CHAPTER ONE

1

Technical Notes

This appendix describes the sampling, data

collection, weighting and variance estimation, scaling, and statistical testing procedures used to collect and analyze the data for the

2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy

(NAAL). Household data collection was conducted from March 2003 through February 2004;

prison data collection was conducted from March

through July 2004.

Sampling 

The 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy

included two samples: (1) adults ages 16 and older

living in households (99 percent of the sample

weighted) and (2) inmates ages 16 and older in federal and state prisons (1 percent of the sample

weighted). Each sample was weighted to represent

its share of the total population of the United States,

and the samples were combined for reporting.

Household Sample

The 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy

household sample included a nationally representative probability sample of 35,365 households.

The household sample was selected on the basis of

a four-stage, stratified area sample: (1) primary

sampling units (PSUs) consisting of counties or

groups of contiguous counties; (2) secondary sampling units (referred to as segments) consisting of

area blocks; (3) housing units containing households; and (4) eligible persons within households.

Person-level data were collected through a screener,

APPENDIX C

C
a background questionnaire, the literacy assessment,

and the oral module. Of the 35,365 sampled households,4,671 were either vacant or not a dwelling unit,

resulting in a sample of 30,694 households.3A total of

25,123 households completed the screener, which

was used to select survey respondents. The final

screener response rate was 81.2 percent weighted.

On the basis of the screener data, 23,732 respondents

ages 16 and older were selected to complete the

background questionnaire and the assessment;18,186

actually completed the background questionnaire. Of

the 5,546 respondents who did not complete the

background questionnaire, 355 were unable to do so

because of a literacy-related barrier, either the inability to communicate in English or Spanish (the two

languages in which the background questionnaire

was administered) or a mental disability.

The final response rate for the background questionnaire, which included respondents who completed

the background questionnaire and respondents who

were unable to complete the background questionnaire because of language problems or a mental disability, was 76.6 percent weighted. Of the 18,186

adults ages 16 and older who completed the background questionnaire, 17,178 completed at least one

question on each of the three scales—prose, document, and quantitative—measured in the adult literacy assessment. An additional 149 were unable to

answer at least one question on each of the three

scales for literacy-related reasons.4The final response

rate for the literacy assessment, which included

respondents who answered at least one question on

each scale plus the 149 respondents who were unable

to do so because of language problems or a mental

disability, was 96.6 percent weighted.

Cases were considered complete if the respondent

completed the background questionnaire and at least

one question on each of the three scales or if the

respondent was unable to answer any questions

because of language issues (an inability to communicate in English or Spanish) or a mental disability. All

other cases that did not include a complete screener,

a background questionnaire, and responses to at least

one question on each of the three literacy scales were

considered incomplete or missing. Before imputation, the overall response rate for the household sample was 60.1 percent weighted.

For respondents who did not complete any literacy

tasks on any scale, no information is available about

their performance on the literacy scale they were

missing. Completely omitting these individuals from

the analyses would have resulted in unknown biases

in estimates of the literacy skills of the national population because refusals cannot be assumed to have

occurred randomly. For 859 respondents5 who

answered the background questionnaire but refused to

complete the assessment for reasons other than language issues or a mental disability, regression-based

imputation procedures were applied to impute

responses to one assessment item on each scale by

using the NAAL background data on age, gender,

race/ethnicity, education level, country of birth, census region, and metropolitan statistical area status.

On the prose and quantitative scales, a response was

imputed for the easiest task on each scale. On the

100

Literacy Behind Bars

5 Of the 18,186 household respondents who completed the background questionnaire, 17,178 completed at least one question on

each of the three scales and 149 were unable to answer at least one

question on one or more of the scales for literacy-related reasons.

The remaining 859 respondents completed the background questionnaire but refused to complete the assessment.

3 To increase the number of Black and Hispanic adults in the

NAAL sample, segments with moderate to high concentrations of

Black and Hispanic adults were given a higher selection probability. Segments in which Blacks or Hispanics accounted for 25 percent

or more of the population were oversampled at a rate up to three

times that of the remainder of the segments.

4 Of the 149 respondents who were unable to answer at least one

question on each of the three scales for literacy-related reasons, 65

respondents answered at least one question on one scale. The

remaining 84 respondents did not answer any questions on any scale.
document scale, a response was imputed for the second easiest task because that task was also included on

the health literacy scale. In each of the logistic regression models, the estimated regression coefficients

were used to predict missing values of the item to be

imputed. For each nonrespondent, the probability of

answering the item correctly was computed and then

compared with a randomly generated number

between 0 and 1. If the probability of getting a correct answer was greater than the random number, the

imputed value for the item was 1 (correct).Otherwise

it was 0 (wrong). In addition, a wrong response on

each scale was imputed for 65 respondents who started to answer the assessment but were unable to

answer at least one question on each scale because of

language issues or a mental disability.6

The final household reporting sample—including

the imputed cases—consisted of 18,102 respondents.

These 18,102 respondents are the 17,178 respondents who completed the background questionnaire

and the assessment, plus the 859 respondents who

completed the background questionnaire but refused

to do the assessment for non-literacy-related reasons

and have imputed responses to one item on each

scale, plus the 65 respondents who started to answer

the assessment items but were unable to answer at

least one question on each scale because of language

issues or a mental disability.After including the cases

for which responses to the assessment questions were

imputed, the weighted response rate for the household sample was 62.1 percent (18,102 cases with

complete or imputed data and an additional 439

cases that had no assessment data because of language

issues or a mental disability).7

The household sample was subject to unit nonresponse from the screener, background questionnaire,

literacy assessment, and oral module and to item

nonresponse to background questionnaire items.

Although all background questionnaire items had

response rates of more than 85 percent, two stages of

data collection—the screener and the background

questionnaire—had unit response rates below 85

percent and thus required an analysis of the potential for nonresponse bias.

Table C-1 presents a summary of the household

response rate.

Prison Sample

The 2003 assessment also included a nationally representative probability sample of inmates in federal and

state prisons. A total of 114 prisons were selected to

participate in the adult literacy assessment. Of these

114 prisons, 107 agreed to participate, 3 refused, and

4 were ineligible. The final prison response rate was

97.3 percent weighted. From among the inmates in

those prisons, 1,298 inmates ages 16 and older were

randomly selected to complete the background questionnaire and assessment. Of those 1,298 selected

inmates, 1,161 completed the background questionnaire. Of the 137 who did not complete the background questionnaire, 12 were unable to do so

because of a literacy-related barrier, either the inabil101

Appendix C: Technical Notes

Table C-1. Weighted and unweighted household

response rate, by survey component: 2003

Weighted Unweighted

Response rate Response rate

Survey component (percent) (percent)

Screener 81.2 81.8

Background questionnaire 76.6 78.1

Literacy assessment 96.6 97.2

Overall response rate before imputation 60.1 62.1

Overall response rate after imputation 62.1 63.9

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for

Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

6 For a more detailed discussion of imputation see Little and

Rubin (2002).

7 The 439 cases that had no assessment data because of language

issues or a mental disability include the 355 respondents who were

unable to complete the background questionnaire for one of these

reasons, plus the 84 respondents who did not answer any questions

on any scale because of language issues or a mental disability.
ity to communicate in English or Spanish (the two

languages in which the background questionnaire

was administered) or a mental disability.

The final response rate for the prison background

questionnaire, which included respondents who

completed the background questionnaire and

respondents who were unable to complete the background questionnaire because of language problems

or a mental disability, was 90.6 percent weighted. Of

the 1,161 inmates who completed the background

questionnaire, 1,125 completed at least one question

on each of the three scales—prose, document, and

quantitative—measured in the adult literacy assessment. An additional eight were unable to answer at

least one question on each of the three scales for literacy-related reasons.The final response rate for the

literacy assessment, which included respondents who

answered at least one question on each scale or were

unable to do so because of language problems or a

mental disability, was 98.9 percent weighted.

The same definition of a complete case used for the

household sample was also used for the prison sample, and the same rules were followed for imputation.

Before imputation, the final response rate for the

prison sample was 87.2 percent weighted.

One response on each scale was imputed on the basis

of background characteristics for 28 inmates who

completed the background questionnaire but had

incomplete or missing assessments for reasons that

were not literacy related. The statistical imputation

procedures were the same as for the household sample. The background characteristics used for the

missing data imputation for the prison sample were

prison security level, region of country/prison type,

age, gender, educational attainment, country of birth,

race/ethnicity, and marital status. A wrong response

on each scale was imputed for the three inmates who

started to answer the assessment but were unable to

answer at least one question on each scale because of

language issues or a mental disability.The final prison

reporting sample—including the imputed cases—

consisted of 1,156 respondents. After the cases for

which responses to the assessment questions were

imputed were included, the weighted response rate

for the prison sample was 88.3 percent (1,156 cases

with complete or imputed data and an additional 17

cases that had no assessment data because of language

issues or a mental disability).

Table C-2 presents a summary of the prison response

rate.

Nonresponse Bias

NCES statistical standards require a nonresponse bias

analysis when the unit response rate for a sample is less

than 85 percent.The nonresponse bias analysis of the

household sample revealed differences in the background characteristics of respondents who participated

in the assessment compared with those who refused.

In bivariate unit-level analyses at the screener and

background questionnaire stages, estimated percentages for respondents were compared with those for

the total eligible sample to identify any potential bias

owing to nonresponse. Although some statistically

significant differences existed, the potential for bias

was small because the absolute difference between

estimated percentages was less than 2 percent for all

domains considered. Multivariate analyses were con102

Literacy Behind Bars

Table C-2. Weighted and unweighted prison

response rate, by survey component: 2003

Weighted Unweighted

Response rate Response rate

Survey component (percent) (percent)

Prison 97.3 97.3

Background questionnaire 90.6 90.4

Literacy assessment 98.9 98.8

Overall response rate before imputation 87.2 86.8

Overall response rate after imputation 88.3 87.9

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for

Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.
ducted to further explore the potential for nonresponse bias by identifying the domains with the most

differential response rates. These analyses revealed

that the lowest response rates for the screener were

among dwelling units in segments with high median

income, small average household size, and a large

proportion of renters. The lowest response rates for

the background questionnaire were among males

ages 30 and older in segments with high median

income. However, the variables used to define these

areas and other pockets with low response rates were

used in weighting adjustments. The analysis showed

that weighting adjustments were highly effective in

reducing the bias.The general conclusion was that the

potential amount of nonresponse bias attributable to

unit nonresponse at the screener and background

questionnaire stages was likely to be negligible.

Data Collection 

Household interviews took place in respondents’

homes; prison interviews generally took place in a

classroom or library in the prison. Whenever possible, interviewers administered the background questionnaire and assessment in a private setting. Unless

there were security concerns, a guard was not present in the room when inmates were interviewed.

Interviewers used a computer-assisted personal interviewing (CAPI) system programmed into laptop

computers. The interviewers read the background

questions from the computer screen and entered all

responses directly into the computer.Skip patterns and

follow-up probes for contradictory or out-of-range

responses were programmed into the computer.

After completing the background questionnaire,

respondents were handed a booklet with the assessment questions. The interviewers followed a script

that introduced the assessment booklet and guided

the respondent through the assessment.

Each assessment booklet began with the same seven

questions. After the respondent completed those

questions, the interviewer asked the respondent for

the book and used an algorithm to determine on the

basis of the responses to the first seven questions

whether the respondent should continue in the main

assessment or be placed in the Adult Literacy

Supplemental Assessment (ALSA). Three percent of

adults weighted (5 percent unweighted) were placed

in the ALSA.

ALSA was a performance-based assessment that

allowed adults with marginal literacy to demonstrate

what they could and could not do when asked to

make sense of various forms of print.The ALSA

started with simple identification tasks and sight

words and moved to connected text, using authentic, highly contextualized material commonly found

at home or in the community. Respondents placed

in the ALSA are included in the NAAL sample

based on their responses to the seven questions

Because the ALSA respondents got most or all of the

seven questions at the beginning of the assessment

wrong, they would have been classified into the

Below Basic level on the prose, document, and quantitative scales.

A respondent who continued in the main assessment

was given back the assessment booklet, and the interviewer asked the respondent to complete the tasks in

the booklet and guided the respondent through the

tasks.The main assessment consisted of 12 blocks of

tasks with approximately 11 questions in each block,

but each assessment booklet included only 3 blocks

of questions.The blocks were spiraled so that across

the 26 different configurations of the assessment

booklet, each block was paired with every other

block and each block appeared in each of the three

positions (first, middle, last) in a booklet.

For ALSA interviews, the interviewer read the ALSA

script from a printed booklet and classified the

103

Appendix C: Technical Notes
respondent’s answers into the response categories in

the printed booklet.ALSA respondents were handed

the materials they were asked to read

Following the main assessment or ALSA, all respondents were administered the oral fluency assessment

(not discussed in this report).Respondents were handed a booklet with passages, number lists, letter lists,

word lists, and pseudoword lists to read orally.

Respondents read into a microphone that recorded

their responses on the laptop computer.

Weighting and Variance Estimation

A complex sample design was used to select assessment respondents.The properties of a sample selected through a complex design could be very different

from those of a simple random sample in which every

individual in the target population has an equal

chance of selection and in which the observations

from different sampled individuals can be considered

to be statistically independent of one another.

Therefore, the properties of the sample for the complex data collection design were taken into account

during the analysis of the data. Standard errors calculated as though the data had been collected from a

simple random sample would generally underestimate

sampling errors. One way of addressing the properties

of the sample design was by using sampling weights

to account for the fact that the probabilities of selection were not identical for all respondents.All population and subpopulation characteristics based on the

NAAL data used sampling weights in their estimation.

The statistics presented in this report are estimates of

group and subgroup performance based on a sample

of respondents, rather than the values that could be

calculated if every person in the nation answered

every question on the instrument. It is therefore

important to have measures of the degree of uncertainty of the estimates. Accordingly, in addition to

providing estimates of percentages of respondents

and their average scale score, this report provides

information about the uncertainty of each statistic.

Because the assessment used clustered sampling, conventional formulas for estimating sampling variability that assume simple random sampling and hence

independence of observations are inappropriate. For

this reason, the NAAL assessment uses a Taylor series

procedure based on the sandwich estimator to estimate

standard errors (Binder 1983).

Scaling

As discussed above, each respondent to the NAAL

received a booklet that included 3 of the 13 assessments blocks. Because each respondent did not

answer all of the NAAL items, item response theory

(IRT) methods were used to estimate average scores

on the health, prose, document, and quantitative 

literacy scales (health literacy results are not included

in this report); a simple average percent correct

would not allow for reporting results that are comparable for all respondents. IRT models the probability of answering a question correctly as a mathematical function of proficiency or skill. The main purpose of IRT analysis is to provide a common scale on

which performance on some latent trait can be 

compared across groups, such as those defined by sex,

race/ethnicity, or place of birth (Hambleton and

Swaminathan 1985).

IRT models assume that an examinee’s performance

on each item reflects characteristics of the item and

characteristics of the examinee. All models assume

that all items on a scale measure a common latent

ability or proficiency dimension (e.g., prose literacy)

and that the probability of a correct response on an

item is uncorrelated with the probability of a correct

response on another item given fixed values of the

latent trait. Items are measured in terms of their 

104

Literacy Behind Bars
difficulty as well as their ability to discriminate

among examinees of varying ability.

The assessment used two types of IRT models to

estimate scale scores. The two-parameter logistic

(2PL) model, which was used for dichotomous items

(that is, items that are scored either right or wrong)

takes the form

,

where is the response of person j to item i, is

the proficiency of person j, is the slope or discrimination parameter for item i, and is the location or

difficulty parameter for item i.

For the partial credit items, the graded response

logistic (GRL) model was used. This model follows

the 2PL model for the probability of a score of 1 (at

least partially correct):

.

It also follows the 2PL model for the probability of a

score of 2 (completely correct):

.

In the equations above, and are the step

parameters corresponding to the response categories

of partially or fully correct.

The scale indeterminacy was solved by setting an origin and unit size to the reported scale means and

standard deviations from the 1992 assessment.8 Linear

transformation was performed to transform the original scale metric to the final reporting metric.

Levels were set and items were mapped to scales based

on the scores corresponding to a 67 percent success

rate on the tasks.

Statistical Testing

The statistical comparisons in this report were based

on the t statistic.Statistical significance was determined

by calculating a t value for the difference between a

pair of means, or proportions, and comparing this

value with published tables of values at a certain level

of significance, called alpha level.The alpha level is an

a priori statement of the probability of inferring that

a difference exists when, in fact, it does not. The

alpha level used in this report is .05, based on a twotailed test.The formula used to compute the t statistic was as follows:

,

where and are the estimates to be compared

and and are their corresponding standard

errors.

105

Appendix C: Technical Notes

8 The means for the 1992 assessment were 276 for prose, 271 for

document, and 275 for quantitative.The standard deviations for the

1992 assessment were 61 for prose, 61 for document, and 66 for

quantitative.The standard deviations for the 2003 assessment were

59 for prose, 57 for document, and 61 for quantitative.

107

toc

CHAPTER ONE

1

Estimates and Standard Errors for

Tables and Figures

APPENDIX D APPENDIX C

DC
108

Literacy Behind Bars

Table D2-1. Estimates and standard errors for Table 2-1. Percentage of the adult prison population in selected

groups: 1992 and 2003

Characteristic 1992 2003

Race/ethnicity

White 35 (2.3) 32 (1.8)

Black 45 (1.9) 46 (1.7)

Hispanic 16 (1.8) 18 (1.4)

Other 3 (0.5) 5 (0.7)

Gender

Male 94 (1.5) 94 (2.2)

Female 6 (1.5) 6 (2.2)

Highest educational attainment

Less than high school 13 (1.1) 9 (1.1)*

Some high school 36 (1.5) 28 (1.4)*

GED/high school equivalency 17 (1.2) 28 (1.8)*

High school graduate 14 (1.1) 13 (1.1)

Postsecondary 20 (1.2) 22 (1.4)

Age

16–24 23 (2.2) 16 (1.7)*

25–39 58 (1.6) 52 (1.4)*

40+ 19 (1.5) 32 (1.5)*

Language spoken before starting school

English only 85 (1.7) 85 (1.4)

English and other 6 (1.0) 6 (0.7)

Other only 9 (1.2) 9 (1.2)

Parents’ highest educational attainment

Less than high school 19 (1.7) 13 (1.2)*

Some high school 16 (1.4) 13 (1.2)

GED/high school equivalency/high school graduate 39 (1.6) 41 (1.9)

Postsecondary 25 (1.5) 33 (1.5)*

*Significantly different from 1992.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (3 percent in 1992 and 1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this table. In 1992, respondents were allowed to identify only one race but could identify “other” as

their race. In 2003, respondents were allowed to identify multiple races but could not choose “other” as their race.The ”Other” category includes Asians, Pacific Islanders, Native Hawaiians, American Indians, and

Alaska Natives. In 2003, the “Other” category also includes adults who said they were multi-racial; in 1992, it also includes adults who chose “other” as their race. All adults of Hispanic origin are classified as

Hispanic, regardless of race. Black includes African American, and Hispanic includes Latino. Postsecondary includes any education beyond high school.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey and 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.
109

Appendix D: Estimates and Standard Errors for Tables and Figures

Table D2-3. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 2-2. Percentage of the adult prison population in each

prose, document, and quantitative literacy level: 1992 and 2003

Literacy scale 1992 2003 1992 2003 1992 2003 1992 2003

Prose 22 (1.5) 16 (1.6)* 40 (1.4) 40 (1.7) 35 (1.6) 41 (1.8)* 3 (0.6) 3 (0.7)

Document 22 (1.7) 15 (1.6)* 33 (1.5) 35 (1.8) 42 (2.0) 48 (2.1)* 3 (0.8) 2 (0.6)

Quantitative 50 (2.1) 39 (1.7)* 32 (1.3) 39 (1.5)* 16 (1.3) 20 (1.2)* 3 (0.7) 2 (0.5)

*Significantly different from 1992.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (3 percent in 1992 and 1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this table.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey and 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Below Basic Basic Intermediate Proficient

Table D2-2. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 2-1. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy

scores of the adult prison population: 1992 and 2003

Literacy scale 1992 2003

Prose 248 (2.0) 257 (1.9)*

Document 243 (2.6) 249 (1.5)

Quantitative 234 (3.4) 249 (1.9)*

*Significantly different from 1992.

NOTE: Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (3

percent in 1992 and 1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this table.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey and 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Table D2-4. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 2-3. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy

scores of the adult prison population, by race/ethnicity: 1992 and 2003

Race/ethnicity 1992 2003 1992 2003 1992 2003

White 267 (3.3) 274 (3.7) 268 (3.9) 265 (2.4) 266 ( 4.3) 274 (2.9)

Black 241 (2.4) 252 (2.6)* 229 (2.9) 240 (2.1)* 216 (4.3) 237 (2.6)*

Hispanic 224 (5.6) 232 (5.4) 224 (5.2) 236 (4.7) 212 (5.9) 231 (3.8)*

Other 248 (8.2) 262 (8.5) 256 (10.4) 255 (8.5) 251 (11.7) 254 (8.9)

*Significantly different from 1992.

NOTE: Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (3

percent in 1992 and 1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this table. In 1992, respondents were allowed to identify only one race but could identify “other” as their race. In 2003, respondents were allowed to identify multiple races but could not choose “other” as their race.The “Other” category includes Asians, Pacific Islanders, Native Hawaiians, American Indians, and Alaska Natives. In 2003, the “Other” category also

includes adults who said they were multi-racial; in 1992, it also includes adults who chose “other” as their race. All adults of Hispanic origin are classified as Hispanic, regardless of race. Black includes African

American, and Hispanic includes Latino.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey and 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Prose Document Quantitative
110

Literacy Behind Bars

Table D2-6. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 2-5. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy

scores of the adult prison population, by highest educational attainment: 1992 and 2003

Educational attainment 1992 2003 1992 2003 1992 2003

Less than high school 205 (7.6) 199 (7.3) 195 (6.1) 192 (7.6) 184 (9.4) 198 (7.5)

Some high school 228 (2.7) 235 (3.1) 229 (2.6) 231 (3.1) 215 (3.4) 223 (3.5)

GED/high school equivalency 270 (3.9) 270 (3.1) 255 (3.7) 260 (2.3) 259 (4.4) 263 (2.6)

High school graduate 251 (5.5) 264 (4.7) 250 (5.4) 255 (5.4) 235 (6.2) 247 (5.9)

Postsecondary 286 (3.9) 282 (3.2) 279 (3.7) 267 (3.3)* 277 (4.8) 280 (3.1)

*Significantly different from 1992.

NOTE: Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (3

percent in 1992 and 1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this table. Postsecondary includes any education beyond high school.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey and 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Prose Document Quantitative

Table D2-5. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 2-4. Percentage of the adult prison population in each

prose, document, and quantitative literacy level, by race/ethnicity: 1992 and 2003

Literacy scale and race/ethnicity 1992 2003 1992 2003 1992 2003 1992 2003

Prose

White 12 (2.1) 9 (2.0) 35 (2.6) 32 (3.1) 47 (2.9) 52 (3.6) 6 (1.7) 7 (2.1)

Black 25 (2.2) 15 (2.9)* 43 (2.2) 47 (3.7) 30 (2.2) 37 (3.8) 1 (0.6) 1 (0.9)

Hispanic 38 (4.4) 35 (3.6) 39 (3.3) 35 (3.0) 22 (3.5) 28 (2.8) 1 (0.6) 2 (0.9)

Other 24 (5.9) 11 (7.0) 39 (5.8) 41 (10.4) 33 (6.0) 46 (10.9) 4 (2.8) 3 (3.9)

Document

White 11 (1.9) 6 (2.2) 24 (2.1) 27 (4.2) 57 (2.9) 64 (4.6) 8 (2.1) 3 (1.8)*

Black 28 (3.2) 19 (2.8)* 41 (3.1) 40 (2.9) 31 (3.4) 40 (3.3) 1 (0.5) 1 (0.6)

Hispanic 36 (3.6) 23 (3.8)* 31 (2.4) 36 (3.0) 31 (3.2) 39 (4.2) 2 (0.9) 2 (1.1)

Other 13 (5.4) 14 (5.6) 33 (6.4) 31 (7.3) 48 (7.6) 52 (8.6) 6 (4.0) 4 (3.9)

Quantitative 

White 27 (3.2) 19 (3.5) 39 (2.9) 45 (3.9) 28 (2.7) 33 (3.6) 6 (1.8) 4 (1.7)

Black 63 (3.1) 49 (2.9)* 28 (2.2) 37 (2.5)* 9 (1.7) 13 (1.7) 1 (0.6) 1 (0.5)

Hispanic 64 (3.7) 53 (2.8)* 26 (2.5) 32 (2.3) 9 (2.0) 13 (1.7) 1 (0.6) 2 (0.8)

Other 41 (5.9) 34 (8.3) 31 (5.0) 41 (7.4) 19 (3.9) 24 (6.7) 9 (3.8) 1 (1.8)

*Significantly different from 1992.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (3 percent in 1992 and 1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this table. In 1992, respondents were allowed to identify only one race but could identify “other” as

their race. In 2003, respondents were allowed to identify multiple races but could not choose “other” as their race.The “Other” category includes Asians, Pacific Islanders, Native Hawaiians, American Indians, and

Alaska Natives. In 2003, the “Other” category also includes adults who said they were multi-racial; in 1992, it also includes adults who chose “other” as their race. All adults of Hispanic origin are classified as

Hispanic, regardless of race. Black includes African American, and Hispanic includes Latino.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992 National Adult literacy Survey and 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Below Basic Basic Intermediate Proficient
111

Appendix D: Estimates and Standard Errors for Tables and Figures

Table D2-8. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 2-7. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy

scores of the adult prison population, by gender: 1992 and 2003

Gender 1992 2003 1992 2003 1992 2003

Male 249 (2.0) 257 (2.0)* 243 (2.6) 249 (1.6) 235 (3.4) 250 (1.9)*

Female 244 (8.4) 259 (5.6) 242 (11.0) 249 (8.6) 221 (12.1) 237 (9.0)

*Significantly different from 1992.

NOTE: Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (3

percent in 1992 and 1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this table.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey and 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Prose Document Quantitative

Table D2-7. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 2-6. Percentage of the adult prison population in each

prose, document, and quantitative literacy level, by highest educational attainment: 1992 and 2003

Literacy scale and

educational attainment 1992 2003 1992 2003 1992 2003 1992 2003

Prose

Less than high school 50 (4.8) 58 (5.6) 35 (3.1) 31 (4.4) 15 (3.1) 11 (3.0) 1 (0.5) # (†)

Some high school 33 (3.8) 25 (4.9) 47 (3.4) 54 (5.4) 19 (3.0 ) 21 (4.8) # (†) # (†)

GED/high school equivalency 4 (4.9) 5 (2.7) 40 (11.5) 38 (6.8) 54 (12.1) 54 (7.1) 2 (3.5) 3 (2.4)

High school graduate 19 (4.6) 14 (3.1) 39 (4.7) 34 (3.6) 40 (5.3) 47 (3.8) 2 (1.5) 5 (2.0)

Postsecondary 5 (1.8) 5 (1.5) 26 (3.9) 28 (3.4) 58 (4.4) 58 (3.8) 11 (3.4) 8 (2.5)

Document

Less than high school 55 (4.4) 56 (5.8) 29 (2.8) 30 (3.6) 15 (2.8) 14 (3.5) 1 (0.5) # (†)

Some high school 28 (2.8) 22 (7.2) 41 (2.8) 48 (7.4) 31 (3.2) 30 (8.1) 1 (0.5) # (†)

GED/high school equivalency 9 (4.0) 5 (2.6) 34 (6.9) 33 (5.4) 55 (7.6) 60 (5.9) 1 (1.7) 2 (1.7)

High school graduate 19 (3.9) 15 (3.9) 31 (3.3) 28 (4.5) 46 (4.2) 54 (5.5) 4 (2.0) 3 (2.4)

Postsecondary 5 (1.5) 5 (2.9) 21 (2.9) 27 (6.0) 63 (4.0) 65 (6.6) 11 (3.1) 3 (3.0)

Quantitative 

Less than high school 75 (4.4) 74 (5.1) 16 (2.3) 21 (3.7) 7 (2.4) 5 (2.0) 1 (0.8) # (†)

Some high school 64 (3.1) 62 (4.6) 29 (2.4) 30 (3.9) 7 (1.5) 8 (2.1) 1 (0.5) # (†)

GED/high school equivalency 29 (7.5) 23 (5.3) 47 (6.7) 53 (5.6) 22 (6.1) 23 (4.8) 2 (1.9) 1 (1.2)

High school graduate 49 (4.2) 41 (4.2) 33 (3.3) 34 (3.2) 16 (2.5) 22 (2.7) 2 (1.2) 3 (1.1)

Postsecondary 21 (3.7) 15 (3.3) 38 (3.6) 44 (4.3) 33 (3.5) 36 (4.0) 8 (2.7) 5 (2.3)

†Not applicable.

#Rounds to zero.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (3 percent in 1992 and 1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this table. Postsecondary includes any education beyond high school.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey and 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Below Basic Basic Intermediate Proficient
112

Literacy Behind Bars

Table D2-10. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 2-9. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy

scores of the adult prison population, by age: 1992 and 2003

Age 1992 2003 1992 2003 1992 2003

16–24 251 (4.3) 255 (4.8) 250 (3.9) 248 (4.2) 236 (5.1) 246 (4.8)

25–39 247 (2.3) 260 (2.3)* 242 (2.7) 254 (2.0)* 231 (3.7) 252 (2.1)*

40+ 250 (4.8) 252 (3.1) 238 (6.7) 240 (2.8) 241 (7.2) 245 (4.0)

*Significantly different from 1992.

NOTE: Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (3

percent in 1992 and 1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this table.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey and 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Prose Document Quantitative

Table D2-9. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 2-8. Percentage of the adult prison population in each

prose, document, and quantitative literacy level, by gender: 1992 and 2003

Literacy scale and gender 1992 2003 1992 2003 1992 2003 1992 2003

Prose

Male 22 (1.5) 17 (1.6)* 40 (1.5) 39 (1.7) 35 (1.6) 41 (1.9)* 3 (0.6) 4 (0.7)

Female 25 (5.6) 9 (6.9) 39 (4.9) 49 (11.8) 34 (5.4) 42 (12.3) 3 (1.9) 1 (3.0)

Document

Male 22 (1.7) 15 (1.7)* 33 (1.5) 35 (1.8) 42 (2.0) 48 (2.2)* 3 (0.8) 2 (0.6)

Female 22 (5.9) 15 (9.3) 33 (6.9) 35 (10.9) 42 (8.3) 49 (12.6) 3 (2.7) 2 (3.2)

Quantitative 

Male 49 (2.2) 39 (1.7)* 32 (1.3) 39 (1.5)* 16 (1.3) 20 (1.2)* 3 (0.7) 2 (0.5)

Female 59 (7.3) 47 (8.0) 27 (4.6) 38 (6.6) 12 (5.6) 15 (5.2) 2 (2.0) 1 (1.4)

*Significantly different from 1992.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (3 percent in 1992 and 1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this table.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey and 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Below Basic Basic Intermediate Proficient
113

Appendix D: Estimates and Standard Errors for Tables and Figures

Table D2-12. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 2-11. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy

scores of the adult prison population, by language spoken before starting school: 1992 and 2003

Language spoken before starting school 1992 2003 1992 2003 1992 2003

English only 252 (2.1) 261 (1.9)* 246 (2.7) 251 (1.4) 237 (3.4) 252 (2.0)*

English and other 238 (8.5) 255 (7.5) 242 (5.3) 250 (7.5) 239 (10.3) 243 (6.0)

Other only 211 (8.6) 207 (10.3) 213 (7.8) 210 (9.3) 197 (9.3) 219 (7.2)

*Significantly different from 1992.

NOTE: Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (3

percent in 1992 and 1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this table.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey and 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Prose Document Quantitative

Table D2-11. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 2-10. Percentage of the adult prison population in each

prose, document, and quantitative literacy level, by age: 1992 and 2003

Literacy scale and age 1992 2003 1992 2003 1992 2003 1992 2003

Prose

16–24 18 (4.1) 19 (3.8) 45 (4.5) 38 (3.6) 35 (4.9) 40 (4.3) 3 (1.7) 4 (1.7)

25–39 24 (1.5) 13 (2.1)* 37 (1.5) 40 (2.5) 35 (1.6) 45 (2.7)* 3 (0.6) 3 (1.0)

40+ 21 (3.6) 20 (2.2) 40 (3.4) 40 (2.3) 36 (3.8) 37 (2.3) 4 (1.6) 3 (1.0)

Document

16–24 17 (2.6) 14 (4.2) 33 (3.0) 37 (5.1) 47 (3.6) 47 (6.0) 3 (1.5) 2 (1.7)

25–39 23 (1.8) 11 (2.0)* 33 (1.6) 33 (2.6) 42 (2.3) 53 (3.1)* 3 (0.7) 2 (1.0)

40+ 28 (4.2) 21 (3.1) 30 (2.6) 37 (3.1) 37 (3.8) 41 (3.6) 5 (1.7) 1 (0.8)*

Quantitative 

16–24 48 (4.1) 43 (4.4) 36 (2.9) 37 (3.8) 14 (2.5) 18 (2.8) 2 (1.1) 2 (1.3)

25–39 52 (2.3) 36 (2.3)* 31 (1.5) 42 (2.2)* 15 (1.3) 20 (1.7)* 3 (0.7) 2 (0.7)

40+ 46 (4.0) 42 (2.9) 30 (2.5) 35 (2.2) 19 (2.5) 20 (2.1) 5 (1.4) 2 (0.8)

*Significantly different from 1992.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (3 percent in 1992 and 1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this table.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey and 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Below Basic Basic Intermediate Proficient
114

Literacy Behind Bars

Table D2-13. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 2-12. Percentage of the adult prison population in each

prose, document, and quantitative literacy level, by language spoken before starting school: 1992

and 2003

Literacy scale and

language spoken before starting school 1992 2003 1992 2003 1992 2003 1992 2003

Prose

English only 19 (1.6) 13 (1.5)* 40 (1.7) 40 (2.0) 38 (1.8) 44 (2.2)* 3 (0.7) 3 (0.9)

English and other 32 (4.9) 15 (5.4)* 37 (4.0) 43 (7.3) 26 (3.7) 39 (8.0) 5 (2.3) 3 (3.1)

Other only 47 (6.0) 51 (6.0) 34 (3.9) 30 (3.8) 18 (3.8) 18 (3.7) 1 (0.7) 2 (1.0)

Document

English only 21 (1.7) 13 (1.5)* 32 (1.7) 35 (1.9) 44 (2.1) 50 (2.1)* 4 (0.9) 2 (0.6)

English and other 20 (4.3) 12 (8.7) 37 (4.8) 37 (12.0) 40 (5.6) 49 (14.3) 2 (1.9) 2 (3.5)

Other only 43 (5.7) 40 (5.5) 30 (3.5) 33 (3.3) 26 (4.7) 26 (4.3) 1 (0.6) 1 (0.6)

Quantitative 

English only 48 (2.3) 37 (1.8)* 33 (1.5) 40 (1.6)* 16 (1.4) 21 (1.4)* 3 (0.8) 2 (0.6)

English and other 48 (6.2) 44 (7.0) 32 (4.3) 39 (6.2) 16 (3.7) 16 (4.7) 4 (2.6) 1 (1.4)

Other only 70 (4.4) 60 (5.3) 20 (2.6) 30 (3.9)* 9 (2.4) 10 (2.6) 2 (0.9) 1 (1.0)

*Significantly different from 1992.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (3 percent in 1992 and 1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this table.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey and 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Below Basic Basic Intermediate Proficient

Table D2-14. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 2-13. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy

scores of the adult prison population, by parents’ highest educational attainment: 1992 and 2003

Parents’ educational attainment 1992 2003 1992 2003 1992 2003

Less than high school 237 (6.6) 234 (5.0) 231 (5.2) 232 (5.7) 219 (8.4) 236 (5.2)

Some high school 248 (5.3) 258 (4.6) 236 (5.3) 247 (4.4) 230 (7.6) 252 (5.5)*

High school graduate1 256 (2.9) 258 (2.6) 251 (3.4) 249 (2.8) 240 (4.0) 248 (3.4)

Postsecondary 268 (4.7) 271 (3.1) 268 (4.0) 260 (2.2) 262 (4.9) 263 (3.5)

*Significantly different from 1992.

1

High school graduate category includes GRE and high school equivalency.

NOTE: Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (3

percent in 1992 and 1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this table. Postsecondary includes any education beyond high school.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey and 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Prose Document Quantitative
115

Appendix D: Estimates and Standard Errors for Tables and Figures

Table D2-15. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 2-14. Percentage of the adult prison population in each

prose, document, and quantitative literacy level, by parents’ highest educational attainment: 1992

and 2003

Literacy scale and

parents’ educational attainment 1992 2003 1992 2003 1992 2003 1992 2003

Prose

Less than high school 31 (4.1) 30 (4.7) 35 (2.8) 43 (4.2) 31 (3.6) 26 (3.6) 3 (1.1) 1 (0.8)

Some high school 21 (4.8) 17 (3.1) 42 (5.0) 38 (3.9) 35 (5.5) 41 (3.7) 2 (1.5) 5 (1.8)

High school graduate1 16 (2.4) 14 (2.1) 41 (2.8) 40 (2.8) 40 (3.1) 43 (2.9) 3 (1.2) 3 (1.1)

Postsecondary 13 (2.7) 7 (2.2) 33 (3.3) 36 (4.1) 47 (3.4) 53 (4.3) 7 (2.3) 4 (2.1)

Document

Less than high school 30 (4.2) 27 (4.6) 33 (3.3) 35 (3.7) 35 (3.6) 36 (4.5) 3 (1.1) 2 (1.2)

Some high school 26 (4.1) 17 (4.2) 35 (3.7) 35 (4.6) 36 (4.5) 47 (5.5) 3 (1.6) 2 (1.7)

High school graduate1 16 (2.5) 13 (3.5) 32 (2.7) 37 (4.5) 49 (3.3) 49 (5.2) 3 (1.3) 1 (1.2)

Postsecondary 8 (2.4) 8 (2.3) 26 (3.5) 32 (3.8) 60 (4.4) 58 (4.1) 6 (2.6) 2 (1.4)

Quantitative 

Less than high school 58 (4.5) 49 (6.4) 27 (2.6) 38 (5.1) 13 (2.5) 13 (3.6) 2 (1.1) 1 (1.0)

Some high school 52 (4.7) 37 (4.4)* 31 (3.1) 38 (3.8) 14 (2.9) 22 (3.4) 3 (1.4) 3 (1.5)

High school graduate1 46 (3.1) 39 (3.5) 35 (2.4) 41 (2.9) 17 (1.8) 19 (2.4) 2 (0.9) 1 (0.8)

Postsecondary 32 (3.7) 30 (3.0) 37 (3.0) 40 (2.8) 24 (2.8) 26 (2.5) 6 (2.0) 5 (1.4)

*Significantly different from 1992.

1

High school graduate category includes GRE and high school equivalency.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (3 percent in 1992 and 1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this table. Postsecondary includes any education beyond high school.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey and 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Below Basic Basic Intermediate Proficient
116

Literacy Behind Bars

Table D3-1. Estimates and standard errors for Table 3-1. Percentage of the adult prison and household populations in selected groups: 2003

Characteristic Prison Household

Race/ethnicity

White 32 (1.8) 71 (1.3)*

Black 46 (1.7) 11 (0.8)*

Hispanic 18 (1.4) 12 (1.2)*

Other 5 (0.7) 6 (0.6)

Gender

Male 94 (2.2) 48 (0.5)*

Female 6 (2.2) 52 (0.5)*

Highest educational attainment

Still in high school † (†) 3 (0.2)*

Less than high school 9 (1.1) 6 (0.3)*

Some high school 28 (1.4) 10 (0.4)*

GED/high school equivalency 28 (1.8) 5 (0.3)*

High school graduate 13 (1.1) 26 (0.6)*

Postsecondary 22 (1.4) 51 (1.0)*

Age

16–24 16 (1.7) 17 (0.5)

25–39 52 (1.4) 27 (0.5)*

40+ 32 (1.5) 56 (0.6)*

Language spoken before starting school

English only 85 (1.4) 81 (1.1)*

English and other 6 (0.7) 6 (0.4)

Other only 9 (1.2) 13 (0.9)*

Parents’ highest educational attainment

Less than high school 13 (1.2) 18 (0.7)*

Some high school 13 (1.2) 9 (0.4)*

GED/high school equivalency/high school graduate 41 (1.9) 31 (0.6)*

Postsecondary 33 (1.5) 42 (0.7)*

Veteran’s status

Veteran 10 (0.9) 13 (0.5)*

Not a veteran 90 (0.9) 87 (0.5)*

Self-reported health

Poor 4 (0.5) 4 (0.2)

Fair 11 (0.9) 11 (0.4)

Good 22 (1.2) 24 (0.5)*

Very good 35 (1.8) 36 (0.5)

Excellent 28 (1.7) 26 (0.6)

Learning disability diagnosis

Yes 17 (1.1) 6 (0.3)*

No 84 (1.1) 94 (0.3)*

†Not applicable.

*Significantly different from prison population.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons or households. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent of the prison sample and 3 percent of the household sample in 2003) are excluded from this table.The ‘Other’ category includes Asians,

Pacific Islanders, Native Hawaiians, American Indians, Alaska Natives, and multi-racial adults. All adults of Hispanic origin are classified as Hispanic, regardless of race. Black includes African American, and Hispanic

includes Latino.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.
117

Appendix D: Estimates and Standard Errors for Tables and Figures

Table D3-3. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 3-2. Percentage of the adult prison and household populations in each prose, document, and quantitative literacy level: 2003

Literacy scale Prison Household Prison Household Prison Household Prison Household

Prose 16 (1.6) 14 (0.6) 40 (1.7) 29 (0.6)* 41 (1.8) 44 (0.7) 3 (0.7) 13 (0.5)*

Document 15 (1.6) 12 (0.5) 35 (1.8) 22 (0.5)* 48 (2.1) 53 (0.7)* 2 (0.6) 13 (0.6)*

Quantitative 39 (1.7) 21 (0.6)* 39 (1.5) 33 (0.5)* 20 (1.2) 33 (0.5)* 2 (0.5) 14 (0.5)*

*Significantly different from prison population.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons or households. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent of the prison sample and 3 percent of the household sample in 2003) are excluded from this table.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Below Basic Basic Intermediate Proficient

Table D3-2. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 3-1. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy

scores of the adult prison and household populations: 2003

Literacy scale Prison Household

Prose 257 (1.9) 275 (1.3)*

Document 249 (1.5) 271 (1.2)*

Quantitative 249 (1.9) 283 (1.2)*

*Significantly different from prison population.

NOTE: Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons or households.Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental

disabilities (1 percent of the prison sample and 3 percent of the household sample in 2003) are excluded from this table.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Table D3-4. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 3-3. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy

scores of the adult prison and household populations, by race/ethnicity: 2003

Race/ethnicity Prison Household Prison Household Prison Household

White 274 (3.7) 289 (1.5)* 265 (2.4) 282 (1.5)* 274 (2.9) 297 (1.3)*

Black 252 (2.6) 243 (1.8)* 240 (2.1) 238 (2.2) 237 (2.6) 238 (2.2)

Hispanic 232 (5.4) 216 (3.6)* 236 (4.7) 224 (3.6)* 231 (3.8) 233 (3.2)

Other 262 (8.5) 271 (3.5) 255 (8.5) 270 (3.7) 254 (8.9) 279 (3.9)*

*Significantly different from prison population.

NOTE: Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons or households.Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental

disabilities (1 percent of the prison sample and 3 percent of the household sample in 2003) are excluded from this table.The ‘Other’ category includes Asians, Pacific Islanders, Native Hawaiians, American Indians,

Alaska Natives, and multi-racial adults. All adults of Hispanic origin are classified as Hispanic, regardless of race. Black includes African American and Hispanic includes Latino.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Prose Document Quantitative
118

Literacy Behind Bars

Table D3-5. Estimates and standard errors for Table 3-2. Average prose literacy scores of the adult prison and

household populations, by race/ethnicity and age: 2003

Race/ethnicity and age Prison Household

White

16–24 285 (6.2) 287 (2.4)

25–39 275 (4.1) 303 (2.1)*

40+ 267 (6.1) 283 (1.7)*

Black

16–24 238 (7.6) 249 (2.7)

25–39 260 (2.9) 253 (2.8)

40+ 248 (3.3) 234 (2.6)*

Hispanic

16–24 260 (11.8) 235 (4.4)

25–39 229 (6.1) 213 (4.6)*

40+ 218 (10.6) 205 (5.4)

*Significantly different from prison population.

NOTE: Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons or households.Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental

disabilities (1 percent of the prison sample and 3 percent of the household sample in 2003) are excluded from this table. All adults of Hispanic origin are classified as Hispanic, regardless of race. Black includes

African American and Hispanic includes Latino.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Table D3-6. Estimates and standard errors for Table 3-3. Average prose literacy scores of the adult prison and

household populations, by race/ethnicity and date incarcerated: 2003

Race/ethnicity Incarcerated prior to 2002 Incarcerated 2002 or later Household

White 275 (5.4)* 273 (3.9)* 289 (1.5)

Black 255 (2.8)* 249 (4.0) 243 (1.8)

*Significantly different from household population.

NOTE: Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons or households.Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent of the prison sample and 3 percent of the household sample in 2003) are excluded from this table. Because of sample size, theses analyses are not reported for the Hispanic population.

Black includes African American.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.
119

Appendix D: Estimates and Standard Errors for Tables and Figures

Table D3-7. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 3-4. Percentage of the adult prison and household populations in each prose, document, and quantitative literacy level, by race/ethnicity: 2003

Literacy scale and race/ethnicity Prison Household Prison Household Prison Household Prison Household

Prose

White 9 (2.0) 7 (0.5) 32 (3.1) 25 (0.8)* 52 (3.6) 51 (0.9) 7 (2.1) 17 (0.9)*

Black 15 (2.9) 24 (1.4)* 47 (3.7) 43 (1.2) 37 (3.8) 31 (1.4) 1 (0.9) 2 (0.5)

Hispanic 35 (3.6) 45 (1.8)* 35 (3.0) 29 (1.0) 28 (2.8) 22 (1.1) 2 (0.9) 4 (0.5)

Other 11 (7.0) 13 (1.7) 41 (10.4) 32 (2.0) 46 (10.9) 45 (2.1) 3 (3.9) 10 (1.6)

Document 

White 6 (2.2) 8 (0.5) 27 (4.2) 19 (0.7) 64 (4.6) 58 (1.0) 3 (1.8) 15 (1.0)*

Black 19 (2.8) 24 (1.8) 40 (2.9) 35 (1.4) 40 (3.3) 40 (1.9) 1 (0.6) 2 (0.5)

Hispanic 23 (3.8) 36 (1.7)* 36 (3.0) 26 (0.8)* 39 (4.2) 33 (1.2) 2 (1.1) 5 (0.5)*

Other 14 (5.6) 11 (1.6) 31 (7.3) 24 (1.9) 52 (8.6) 54 (2.5) 4 (3.9) 11 (1.8)

Quantitative 

White 19 (3.5) 13 (0.7) 45 (3.9) 32 (0.8)* 33 (3.6) 39 (0.8) 4 (1.7) 17 (0.8)*

Black 49 (2.9) 47 (1.8) 37 (2.5) 36 (1.3) 13 (1.7) 15 (1.1) 1 (0.5) 2 (0.4)

Hispanic 53 (2.8) 50 (1.7) 32 (2.3) 29 (1.0) 13 (1.7) 17 (0.9)* 2 (0.8) 4 (0.5)

Other 34 (8.3) 23 (2.4) 41 (7.4) 35 (2.0) 24 (6.7) 32 (2.0) 1 (1.8) 11 (1.6)*

*Significantly different from prison population.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons or households. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent of the prison sample and 3 percent of the household sample in 2003) are excluded from this table.The ‘Other’ category includes Asians,

Pacific Islanders, Native Hawaiians, American Indians, Alaska Natives, and multi-racial adults. All adults of Hispanic origin are classified as Hispanic, regardless of race. Black includes African American and Hispanic

includes Latino.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Below Basic Basic Intermediate Proficient

Table D3-8. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 3-5. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy

scores of the adult prison and household populations, by highest educational attainment: 2003

Educational attainment Prison Household Prison Household Prison Household

Less than high school 199 (7.3) 160 (4.1)* 192 (7.6) 159 (4.5)* 198 (7.5) 166 (4.5)*

Some high school 235 (3.1) 228 (2.0) 231 (3.1) 230 (1.9) 223 (3.5) 231 (1.8)*

GED/high school equivalency 270 (3.1) 260 (2.2)* 260 (2.3) 257 (2.6) 263 (2.6) 266 (3.2)

High school graduate 264 (4.7) 262 (1.3) 255 (5.4) 258 (1.5) 247 (5.9) 269 (1.6)*

Postsecondary 282 (3.2) 302 (1.2)* 267 (3.3) 293 (0.9)* 280 (3.1) 310 (0.9)*

*Significantly different from prison population.

NOTE: Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons or households.Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental

disabilities (1 percent of the prison sample and 3 percent of the household sample in 2003) are excluded from this table. Postsecondary includes any education beyond high school.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Prose Document Quantitative
120

Literacy Behind Bars

Table D3-9. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 3-6. Percentage of the adult prison and household populations in each prose, document, and quantitative literacy level, by highest educational attainment:

2003

Literacy scale and

educational attainment Prison Household Prison Household Prison Household Prison Household

Prose

Less than high school 58 (5.6) 79 (2.0)* 31 (4.4) 17 (1.6)* 11 (3.0) 4 (0.8)* # (†) # (†)

Some high school 25 (4.9) 35 (1.6) 54 (5.4) 42 (1.3)* 21 (4.8) 22 (1.3) # (†) 1 (0.4)*

GED/high school equivalency 5 (2.7) 11 (1.9) 38 (6.8) 45 (2.9) 54 (7.1) 42 (3.0) 3 (2.4) 3 (1.1)

High school graduate 14 (3.1) 13 (1.0) 34 (3.6) 39 (1.2) 47 (3.8) 44 (1.3) 5 (2.0) 4 (0.6)

Postsecondary 5 (1.5) 4 (0.3) 28 (3.4) 19 (0.7)* 58 (3.8) 54 (0.9) 8 (2.5) 23 (0.9)*

Document 

Less than high school 56 (5.8) 72 (2.0)* 30 (3.6) 18 (1.2)* 14 (3.5) 9 (1.1) # (†) # (†)

Some high school 22 (7.2) 30 (1.6) 48 (7.4) 36 (1.2) 30 (8.1) 33 (1.6) # (†) 2 (0.4)*

GED/high school equivalency 5 (2.6) 13 (2.0)* 33 (5.4) 30 (2.4) 60 (5.9) 53 (2.9) 2 (1.7) 4 (1.3)

High school graduate 15 (3.9) 13 (1.0) 28 (4.5) 29 (1.1) 54 (5.5) 52 (1.4) 3 (2.4) 5 (0.7)

Postsecondary 5 (2.9) 4 (0.3) 27 (6.0) 15 (0.5)* 65 (6.6) 63 (0.9) 3 (3.0) 19 (0.9)*

Quantitative 

Less than high school 74 (5.1) 84 (1.7) 21 (3.7) 12 (1.2)* 5 (2.0) 3 (0.6) # (†) # (†)

Some high school 62 (4.6) 53 (1.6) 30 (3.9) 33 (1.2) 8 (2.1) 13 (1.0)* # (†) 1 (0.3)

GED/high school equivalency 23 (5.3) 26 (3.2) 53 (5.6) 43 (3.1) 23 (4.8) 28 (3.0) 1 (1.2) 3 (1.3)

High school graduate 41 (4.2) 24 (1.4)* 34 (3.2) 42 (1.3)* 22 (2.7) 29 (1.4)* 3 (1.1) 5 (0.7)

Postsecondary 15 (3.3) 7 (0.4)* 44 (4.3) 28 (0.7)* 36 (4.0) 43 (0.8) 5 (2.3) 22 (0.9)*

†Not applicable.

#Rounds to zero.

*Significantly different from prison population.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons or households. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent of the prison sample and 3 percent of the household sample in 2003) are excluded from this table. Postsecondary includes any education beyond high school.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Below Basic Basic Intermediate Proficient
121

Appendix D: Estimates and Standard Errors for Tables and Figures

Table D3-10. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 3-7. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy

scores of the White adult prison and household populations, by highest educational attainment:

2003

Literacy scale and educational attainment Prison Household

Prose 

Less than or some high school 243 (6.4) 231 (2.9)

GED/high school equivalency 275 (4.9) 270 (2.3)

High school graduate 279 (9.6) 270 (1.4)

Postsecondary 295 (4.9) 310 (1.2)*

Document

Less than or some high school 239 (5.1) 229 (3.5)

GED/high school equivalency 267 (3.4) 266 (3.3)

High school graduate 272 (8.2) 264 (1.9)

Postsecondary 278 (4.6) 300 (1.1)*

Quantitative

Less than or some high school 240 (5.2) 235 (3.1)

GED/high school equivalency 275 (4.0) 279 (3.8)

High school graduate 277 (9.0) 279 (1.7)

Postsecondary 296 (4.4) 318 (0.9)*

*Significantly different from prison population.

NOTE: Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons or households.Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental

disabilities (1 percent of the prison sample and 3 percent of the household sample in 2003) are excluded from this table. Postsecondary includes any education beyond high school.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Table D3-11. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 3-8. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy

scores of the Black adult prison and household populations, by highest educational attainment:

2003

Literacy scale and educational attainment Prison Household

Prose 

Less than or some high school 229 (4.4) 200 (3.5)*

GED/high school equivalency 270 (3.8) 233 (3.0)*

High school graduate 255 (4.8) 240 (2.6)*

Postsecondary 271 (4.6) 268 (1.9)

Document

Less than or some high school 221 (3.9) 196 (4.1)*

GED/high school equivalency 254 (3.7) 232 (5.0)*

High school graduate 243 (7.3) 232 (3.0)

Postsecondary 255 (4.9) 261 (2.1)

Quantitative

Less than or some high school 213 (4.6) 189 (4.4)*

GED/high school equivalency 254 (4.1) 232 (5.5)*

High school graduate 227 (10.0) 232 (2.7)

Postsecondary 266 (5.2) 266 (2.1)

*Significantly different from prison population.

NOTE: Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons or households.Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental

disabilities (1 percent of the prison sample and 3 percent of the household sample in 2003) are excluded from this table. Postsecondary includes any education beyond high school.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.
122

Literacy Behind Bars

Table D3-12. Estimates and standard errors for Table 3-4. Percentage of the Black and White adult prison and

household populations in each prose, document, and quantitative literacy level, by highest educational attainment: 2003

Population, literacy scale,

and educational attainment Prison Household Prison Household Prison Household Prison Household

Whites

Prose

Less than or some high school 20 (6.8) 34 (2.4) 49 (8.2) 40 (1.9) 30 (7.9) 24 (1.9) 1 (1.5) 2 (0.5)

GED/high school equivalency 3 (4.6) 5 (1.9) 35 (12.0) 40 (4.3) 58 (12.7) 52 (4.5) 4 (5.3) 3 (1.8)

High school graduate 11 (4.3) 8 (1.0) 27 (5.3) 37 (1.7) 51 (6.4) 51 (1.8) 12 (4.6) 4 (0.8)

Postsecondary 5 (1.9) 2 (0.3) 19 (3.8) 15 (0.7) 61 (4.8) 56 (1.1) 15 (4.0) 27 (1.1)*

Document

Less than or some high school 18 (11.6) 32 (2.3) 44 (12.8) 32 (1.4) 38 (14.1) 34 (2.2) # (†) 3 (0.7)

GED/high school equivalency 2 (3.6) 9 (2.3) 27 (12.0) 26 (3.2) 69 (13.0) 60 (3.9) 2 (4.1) 5 (2.2)

High school graduate 9 (4.7) 10 (1.2) 19 (7.3) 27 (1.6) 65 (8.4) 57 (2.0) 7 (5.9) 6 (1.2)

Postsecondary 3 (3.3) 2 (0.3) 18 (7.8) 12 (0.6) 74 (9.0) 63 (1.2) 6 (6.2) 23 (1.2)*

Quantitative

Less than or some high school 47 (6.4) 50 (2.5) 37 (5.5) 33 (1.7) 15 (4.3) 15 (1.5) 1 (0.6) 2 (0.5)

GED/high school equivalency 12 (11.0) 15 (4.5) 55 (14.7) 45 (5.7) 32 (14.2) 37 (5.5) 2 (3.8) 4 (2.6)

High school graduate 20 (8.5) 17 (1.7) 39 (9.1) 42 (1.9) 36 (8.4) 35 (2.0) 5 (4.9) 6 (1.1)

Postsecondary 5 (5.1) 4 (0.4) 38 (10.2) 24 (0.8) 49 (10.2) 46 (1.0) 8 (6.9) 26 (1.1)*

Blacks

Prose

Less than or some high school 29 (8.9) 54 (2.8)* 55 (9.4) 36 (2.3) 16 (7.7) 10 (1.3) # (†) # (†)

GED/high school equivalency 5 (3.2) 23 (8.6) 39 (8.7) 63 (9.8) 53 (9.0) 15 (7.7)* 3 (3.1) # (†)

High school graduate 14 (6.0) 23 (3.0) 44 (7.5) 49 (3.2) 41 (7.3) 27 (3.2) 1 (1.5) 1 (0.7)

Postsecondary 4 (4.4) 10 (1.2) 40 (10.3) 37 (2.0) 53 (10.7) 49 (2.1) 3 (3.9) 5 (1.0)

Document

Less than or some high school 33 (6.9) 52 (2.7)* 44 (5.9) 31 (1.9)* 23 (6.2) 17 (1.9) # (†) # (†)

GED/high school equivalency 9 (5.1) 24 (7.6) 38 (7.6) 44 (8.1) 52 (8.4) 33 (8.7) 1 (2.2) # (†)

High school graduate 20 (7.2) 24 (4.3) 35 (7.2) 42 (4.2) 43 (8.6) 33 (4.9) 2 (2.6) # (†)

Postsecondary 7 (8.0) 8 (1.7) 38 (13.9) 30 (2.9) 53 (15.5) 59 (3.3) 1 (3.5) 3 (1.3)

Quantitative

Less than or some high school 70 (6.6) 76 (2.1) 26 (5.8) 20 (1.6) 4 (2.1) 5 (0.8) # (†) # (†)

GED/high school equivalency 31 (9.1) 53 (11.9) 51 (9.1) 40 (10.7) 17 (6.5) 7 (5.5) 1 (1.6) # (†)

High school graduate 54 (6.7) 52 (3.5) 31 (5.0) 37 (2.9) 14 (4.0) 10 (1.9) 1 (1.2) # (†)

Postsecondary 24 (7.3) 24 (2.6) 47 (7.6) 46 (2.5) 26 (6.5) 27 (2.4) 2 (2.7) 3 (1.0)

†Not applicable.

#Rounds to zero.

*Significantly different from prison population.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons or households. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent of the prison sample and 3 percent of the household sample in 2003) are excluded from this table. Postsecondary includes any education beyond high school.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Below Basic Basic Intermediate Proficient
123

Appendix D: Estimates and Standard Errors for Tables and Figures

Table D3-15. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 3-11. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy

scores of the adult prison and household populations, by age: 2003

Age Prison Household Prison Household Prison Household

16–24 255 (4.8) 273 (2.1)* 248 (4.2) 274 (1.8)* 246 (4.8) 275 (2.0)*

25–39 260 (2.3) 284 (1.7)* 254 (2.0) 283 (1.8)* 252 (2.1) 292 (1.8)*

40+ 252 (3.1) 272 (1.5)* 240 (2.8) 264 (1.3)* 245 (4.0) 281 (1.3)*

*Significantly different from prison population.

NOTE: Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons or households.Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental

disabilities (1 percent of the prison sample and 3 percent of the household sample in 2003) are excluded from this table.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Prose Document Quantitative

Table D3-14. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 3-10. Percentage of the adult prison and household populations in each prose, document, and quantitative literacy level, by gender: 2003

Literacy scale and gender Prison Household Prison Household Prison Household Prison Household

Prose

Male 17 (1.6) 15 (0.6) 39 (1.7) 29 (0.7)* 41 (1.9) 43 (0.7) 4 (0.7) 13 (0.6)*

Female 9 (6.9) 12 (0.6) 49 (11.8) 28 (0.6) 42 (12.3) 46 (0.8) 1 (3.0) 14 (0.6)*

Document 

Male 15 (1.7) 14 (0.6) 35 (1.8) 23 (0.5)* 48 (2.2) 51 (0.8) 2 (0.6) 13 (0.6)*

Female 15 (9.3) 11 (0.6) 35 (10.9) 22 (0.6) 49 (12.6) 54 (0.8) 2 (3.2) 13 (0.6)*

Quantitative 

Male 39 (1.7) 21 (0.6)* 39 (1.5) 31 (0.5)* 20 (1.2) 33 (0.5)* 2 (0.5) 16 (0.6)*

Female 47 (8.0) 22 (0.8)* 38 (6.6) 35 (0.7) 15 (5.2) 32 (0.7)* 1 (1.4) 11 (0.6)*

*Significantly different from prison population.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons or households. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent of the prison sample and 3 percent of the household sample in 2003) are excluded from this table.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Below Basic Basic Intermediate Proficient

Table D3-13. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 3-9. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy

scores of the adult prison and household populations, by gender: 2003

Gender Prison Household Prison Household Prison Household

Male 257 (2.0) 273 (1.6)* 249 (1.6) 269 (1.5)* 250 (1.9) 287 (1.3)*

Female 259 (5.6) 277 (1.4)* 249 (8.6) 272 (1.2)* 237 (9.0) 279 (1.3)*

*Significantly different from prison population.

NOTE: Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons or households.Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental

disabilities (1 percent of the prison sample and 3 percent of the household sample in 2003) are excluded from this table.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Prose Document Quantitative
124

Literacy Behind Bars

Table D3-17. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 3-13. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy

scores of the adult prison and household populations, by language spoken before starting school:

2003

Language spoken before starting school Prison Household Prison Household Prison Household

English only 261 (1.9) 283 (1.4)* 251 (1.4) 276 (1.3)* 252 (2.0) 289 (1.2)*

English and other 255 (7.5) 272 (2.2)* 250 (7.5) 264 (2.4) 243 (6.0) 278 (3.1)*

Other only 207 (10.3) 212 (3.5) 210 (9.3) 223 (3.9) 219 (7.2) 235 (4.0)

*Significantly different from prison population.

NOTE: Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons or households.Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental

disabilities (1 percent of the prison sample and 3 percent of the household sample in 2003) are excluded from this table.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Prose Document Quantitative

Table D3-16. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 3-12. Percentage of the adult prison and household populations in each prose, document, and quantitative literacy level, by age: 2003

Literacy scale and age Prison Household Prison Household Prison Household Prison Household

Prose

16–24 19 (3.8) 11 (1.0) 38 (3.6) 32 (1.3) 40 (4.3) 48 (1.5) 4 (1.7) 9 (1.0)*

25–39 13 (2.1) 12 (0.6) 40 (2.5) 25 (0.7)* 45 (2.7) 45 (0.8) 3 (1.0) 18 (0.8)*

40+ 20 (2.2) 15 (0.7)* 40 (2.3) 30 (0.6)* 37 (2.3) 43 (0.8)* 3 (1.0) 12 (0.6)*

Document 

16–24 14 (4.2) 10 (0.9) 37 (5.1) 22 (1.0)* 47 (6.0) 57 (1.4) 2 (1.7) 12 (1.0)*

25–39 11 (2.0) 8 (0.7) 33 (2.6) 19 (0.7)* 53 (3.1) 56 (1.1) 2 (1.0) 17 (1.1)*

40+ 21 (3.1) 15 (0.6) 37 (3.1) 24 (0.5)* 41 (3.6) 50 (0.7)* 1 (0.8) 11 (0.5)*

Quantitative 

16–24 43 (4.4) 23 (1.3)* 37 (3.8) 37 (1.2) 18 (2.8) 31 (1.3)* 2 (1.3 9 (0.9)*

25–39 36 (2.3) 17 (0.8)* 42 (2.2) 31 (0.8)* 20 (1.7) 35 (0.8)* 2 (0.7) 17 (1.0)*

40+ 42 (2.9) 23 (0.7)* 35 (2.2) 32 (0.5) 20 (2.1) 32 (0.6)* 2 (0.8) 13 (0.5)*

*Significantly different from prison population.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons or households. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent of the prison sample and 3 percent of the household sample in 2003) are excluded from this table.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Below Basic Basic Intermediate Proficient
125

Appendix D: Estimates and Standard Errors for Tables and Figures

Table D3-18. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 3-14. Percentage of the adult prison and household populations in each prose, document, and quantitative literacy level, by language spoken before starting school: 2003

Literacy scale and

language spoken before starting school Prison Household Prison Household Prison Household Prison Household

Prose

English only 13 (1.5) 9 (0.5)* 40 (2.0) 27 (0.7)* 44 (2.2) 49 (0.8)* 3 (0.9) 15 (0.7)*

English and other 15 (5.4 ) 10 (1.2) 43 (7.3) 35 (1.9) 39 (8.0) 47 (2.0) 3 (3.1) 8 (1.2)

Other only 51 (6.0) 48 (1.7) 30 (3.8) 28 (1.1) 18 (3.7) 21 (1.1) 2 (1.0) 4 (0.5)

Document 

English only 13 (1.5) 9 (0.5)* 35 (1.9) 21 (0.6)* 50 (2.1) 56 (0.8)* 2 (0.6) 14 (0.7)*

English and other 12 (8.7) 11 (1.6) 37 (12.0) 27 (1.8) 49 (14.3) 56 (2.4) 2 (3.5) 6 (1.4)

Other only 40 (5.5) 37 (1.7) 33 (3.3) 25 (0.8)* 26 (4.3) 32 (1.2) 1 (0.6) 6 (0.6)*

Quantitative 

English only 37 (1.8) 8 (0.6)* 40 (1.6) 33 (0.6)* 21 (1.4) 35 (0.6)* 2 (0.6) 15 (0.6)*

English and other 44 (7.0) 21 (2.1)* 39 (6.2) 38 (1.9) 16 (4.7) 31 (2.0)* 1 (1.4) 10 (1.6)*

Other only 60 (5.3) 49 (1.8)* 30 (3.9) 28 (0.9) 10 (2.6) 18 (1.1)* 1 (1.0) 6 (0.7)*

*Significantly different from prison population.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons or households. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent of the prison sample and 3 percent of the household sample in 2003) are excluded from this table.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Below Basic Basic Intermediate Proficient

Table D3-19. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 3-15. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy

scores of the adult prison and household populations, by parents’ highest educational attainment:

2003

Parents’ educational attainment Prison Household Prison Household Prison Household

Less than high school 234 (5.0) 227 (2.6) 232 (5.7) 224 (2.6) 236 (5.2) 239 (2.4)

Some high school 258 (4.6) 261 (2.3) 247 (4.4) 256 (2.1) 252 (5.5) 267 (2.2)*

High school graduate1 258 (2.6) 278 (1.5)* 249 (2.8) 273 (1.5)* 248 (3.4) 285 (1.5)*

Postsecondary 271 (3.1) 300 (1.5)* 260 (2.2) 293 (1.5)* 263 (3.5) 305 (1.3)*

*Significantly different from prison population.

1

High school graduate category includes GED and high school equivalency.

NOTE: Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons or households.Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental

disabilities (1 percent of the prison sample and 3 percent of the household sample in 2003) are excluded from this table. Postsecondary includes any education beyond high school.

SOURCE : U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Prose Document Quantitative
126

Literacy Behind Bars

Table D3-20. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 3-16. Percentage of the adult prison and household populations in each prose, document, and quantitative literacy level, by parents’ highest educational

attainment: 2003

Literacy scale and

parents’ educational attainment Prison Household Prison Household Prison Household Prison Household

Prose

Less than high school 30 (4.7) 37 (1.6 ) 43 (4.2) 35 (1.1) 26 (3.6) 25 (1.1) 1 (0.8) 3 (0.4)*

Some high school 17 (3.1) 16 (1.3) 38 (3.9) 36 (1.6) 41 (3.7) 42 (1.7) 5 (1.8) 6 (0.9)

High school graduate1 14 (2.1) 10 (0.7)* 40 (2.8) 30 (1.0)* 43 (2.9) 49 (1.2)* 3 (1.1) 11 (0.8)*

Postsecondary 7 (2.2) 5 (0.4) 36 (4.1) 20 (0.8)* 53 (4.3) 53 (1.0) 4 (2.1) 22 (1.1)*

Document 

Less than high school 27 (4.6) 35 (1.5) 35 (3.7) 30 (0.8) 36 (4.5) 32 (1.3) 2 (1.2) 3 (0.4)

Some high school 17 (4.2) 15 (1.3) 35 (4.6) 29 (1.3) 47 (5.5) 50 (1.7) 2 (1.7) 6 (0.9)

High school graduate1 13 (3.5) 8 (0.8) 37 (4.5) 23 (0.9)* 49 (5.2) 59 (1.3) 1 (1.2) 10 (1.0)*

Postsecondary 8 (2.3) 4 (0.5) 32 (3.8) 15 (0.8)* 58 (4.1) 61 (1.3) 2 (1.4) 20 (1.3)*

Quantitative 

Less than high school 49 (6.4) 46 (1.4) 38 (5.1) 32 (0.9) 13 (3.6) 18 (0.8) 1 (1.0) 4 (0.4)*

Some high school 37 (4.4) 28 (1.6)* 38 (3.8) 38 (1.5) 22 (3.4) 28 (1.5) 3 (1.5) 6 (0.9)

High school graduate1 39 (3.5) 18 (0.9)* 41 (2.9) 35 (0.8)* 19 (2.4) 35 (0.9)* 1 (0.8) 12 (0.8)*

Postsecondary 30 (3.0) 10 (0.6)* 40 (2.8) 29 (0.8)* 26 (2.5) 41 (0.9)* 5 (1.4) 21 (1.0)*

*Significantly different from prison population.

1

High school graduate category includes GED and high school equivalency.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons or households. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent of the prison sample and 3 percent of the household sample in 2003) are excluded from this table. Postsecondary includes any education beyond high school.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Below Basic Basic Intermediate Proficient
127

Table D4-1. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 4-1. Percentage of the adult prison population, by

GED/high school diploma attainment: 2003

No GED/not currently No GED/currently enrolled Earned GED during Earned GED/H.S. diploma

Population enrolled in academic classes in academic classes in prison current incarceration prior to current incarceration

All prisoners 33 (1.6) 5 (0.8) 19 (1.4) 43 (1.7)

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this table.The category “earned GED/H.S.diploma prior to current incarceration” includes prison inmates who had higher levels of educational attainment (postsecondary education) prior to their current incarceration.

SOURCE: U.S.Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Table D4-3. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 4-3. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy

scores of the adult prison population, by GED/high school diploma attainment: 2003

Literacy scale and GED/high school diploma attainment Average

Prose

No GED/not currently enrolled in academic classes 228 (3.5)

No GED/currently enrolled in academic classes 227 (7.1)

Earned GED during current incarceration 273 (4.0)

Earned GED/H.S. diploma prior to current incarceration 273 (2.4)

Document 

No GED/not currently enrolled in academic classes 223 (3.7)

No GED/currently enrolled in academic classes 227 (6.5)

Earned GED during current incarceration 262 (2.8)

Earned GED/H.S. diploma prior to current incarceration 261 (2.0)

Quantitative 

No GED/not currently enrolled in academic classes 217 (3.9)

No GED/currently enrolled in academic classes 224 (7.0)

Earned GED during current incarceration 266 (3.5)

Earned GED/H.S. diploma prior to current incarceration 266 (2.6)

NOTE: Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1

percent in 2003) are excluded from this table. The category “earned GED/H.S. diploma prior to current incarceration” includes prison inmates who had higher levels of educational attainment (postsecondary education) prior to their current incarceration.

SOURCE: U.S.Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Table D4-2. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 4-2. Percentage of the adult prison population with a

GED/high school equivalency certificate or high school diploma, by expected date of release: 2003

Expected date of release Percent

2 years or less 65 (2.0)

More than 2 years 60 (2.5)

NOTE: Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1

percent in 2003) are excluded from this table. The category “earned GED/H.S. diploma prior to current incarceration” includes prison inmates who had higher levels of educational attainment (postsecondary education) prior to their current incarceration.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Appendix D: Estimates and Standard Errors for Tables and Figures
128

Literacy Behind Bars

Table D4-4. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 4-4. Percentage of the adult prison population in each

prose, document, and quantitative literacy level, by GED/high school diploma attainment: 2003

Literacy scale and GED/high school diploma attainment Below Basic Basic Intermediate Proficient

Prose

No GED/not currently enrolled in academic classes 33 (4.3) 48 (4.1) 19 (3.4) # (†)

No GED/currently enrolled in academic classes 32 (9.8) 53 (10.3) 16 (9.2) # (†)

Earned GED during current incarceration 5 (2.9) 35 (8.2) 57 (8.4) 3 (3.2)

Earned GED/H.S. diploma prior to current incarceration 8 (1.6) 33 (2.6) 53 (2.8) 6 (1.6)

Document 

No GED/not currently enrolled in academic classes 32 (5.1) 41 (3.9) 27 (4.6) # (†)

No GED/currently enrolled in academic classes 27 (19.8) 48 (19.3) 25 (20.1) # (†)

Earned GED during current incarceration 3 (3.4) 32 (9.0) 63 (9.9) 1 (2.5)

Earned GED/H.S. diploma prior to current incarceration 9 (1.7) 29 (2.7) 59 (3.0) 3 (1.3)

Quantitative 

No GED/not currently enrolled in academic classes 65 (3.9) 28 (3.1) 7 (1.7) # (†)

No GED/currently enrolled in academic classes 62 (13.2) 32 (11.2) 6 (5.7) # (†)

Earned GED during current incarceration 23 (5.2) 50 (5.6) 25 (4.9) 2 (1.9)

Earned GED/H.S. diploma prior to current incarceration 25 (2.7) 44 (2.7) 28 (2.4) 3 (1.1)

†Not applicable.

#Rounds to zero.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this table.The category “earned GED/H.S.diploma prior to current incarceration” includes prison inmates who had higher levels of educational attainment (postsecondary education) prior to their current incarceration.

SOURCE: U.S.Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Table D4-5. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 4-5. Percentage of the adult prison population, by length

of participation in vocational training programs: 2003

Population No participation Less than 6 months 6-12 months More than 1 year

All prisioners 71 (1.7) 11 (1.1) 8 (0.9) 9 (1.1)

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this table.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Table D4-6. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 4-6. Percentage of the adult prison population, by enrollment in vocational training: 2003

Population Currently enrolled in classes On a waiting list Not enrolled and not on waiting list

All prisoners 10 (1.1) 14 (1.1) 77 (1.6)

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this table.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.
129

Appendix D: Estimates and Standard Errors for Tables and Figures

Table D4-8. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 4-8. Percentage of the adult prison population participating in vocational training who received selected types of instruction as part of the vocational training, by type of instruction: 2003

Vocational training emphasis Percent

Reading 46 (3.1)

Writing 44 (2.9)

Mathematics 63 (3.2)

Computers 31 (2.9)

Communication 74 (2.7)

NOTE: Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1

percent in 2003) are excluded from this table.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Table D4-9. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 4-9. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy

scores of the adult prison population, by participation in vocational training: 2003

Literacy scale and participation in vocational training Average

Prose

Current participation 257 (5.3)

Past participation 265 (3.8)

No participation 255 (2.4)

Document

Current participation 253 (6.1)

Past participation 255 (3.7)

No participation 246 (1.9)

Quantitative

Current participation 252 (5.2)

Past participation 254 (3.9)

No participation 247 (2.3)

NOTE: Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1

percent in 2003) are excluded from this table.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Table D4-7. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 4-7. Percentage of the adult prison population who participated in vocational training during current incarceration, by expected date of release: 2003

Expected date of release Percent

2 years or less 27 (2.1)

More than 2 years 32 (2.5)

NOTE: Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1

percent in 2003) are excluded from this table.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.
130

Literacy Behind Bars

Table D4-10. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 4-10. Percentage of the adult prison population who participated in vocational training, by prose, document, and quantitative literacy level: 2003

Literacy scale and literacy level Current participation Past participation No participation

Prose

Below Basic 10 (2.7) 13 (3.2) 77 (4.0)

Basic 10 (1.6) 18 (2.2) 72 (2.5)

Intermediate 10 (1.6) 22 (2.4) 68 (2.6)

Proficient 10 (5.8) 21 (9.6) 69 (10.4)

Document

Below Basic 9 (3.0) 14 (4.5) 78 (5.0)

Basic 9 (1.8) 19 (2.7) 73 (3.0)

Intermediate 10 (1.8) 21 (2.6) 69 (2.8)

Proficient 16 (13.5) 26 (17.6) 58 (18.6)

Quantitative

Below Basic 9 (1.6) 17 (2.6) 75 (2.8)

Basic 10 (1.6) 22 (2.5) 68 (2.6)

Intermediate 10 (2.2) 19 (3.5) 70 (3.7)

Proficient 9 (6.2) 13 (10.3) 78 (11.0)

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this table.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Table D4-11. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 4-11. Percentage of the adult prison and household populations who have received skill certification: 2003

Skill certification and population Percent

IT certification

Prison 6 (0.8)

Houshold 8 (0.4)*

Other certification 

Prison 25 (1.5)

Houshold 27 (0.6)

*Significantly different from prison population.

NOTE: Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons or households.Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental

disabilities (1 percent of the prison sample and 3 percent of the household sample in 2003) are excluded from this table.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.
131

Appendix D: Estimates and Standard Errors for Tables and Figures

Table D4-12. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 4-12. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy

scores of the adult prison and household populations, by receipt of information technology skill

certification: 2003

Literacy scale, population, and skill certification Average

Prose

Prison

No IT certification 255 (2.0)

Received IT certification 276 (4.9)

Household

No IT certification 273 (1.4)*

Received IT certification 291 (2.0)*

Document

Prison

No IT certification 247 (1.5)

Received IT certification 267 (5.8)

Household 

No IT certification 269 (1.3)*

Received IT certification 285 (2.7)*

Quantitative

Prison

No IT certification 247 (1.8)

Received IT certification 277 (7.0)

Household 

No IT certification 281 (1.2)*

Received IT certification 302 (2.4)*

*Significantly different from prison population.

NOTE: Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons or households.Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent of the prison sample and 3 percent of the household sample in 2003) are excluded from this table.

SOURCE: U. S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.
132

Literacy Behind Bars

Table D4-13. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 4-13. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy

scores of the adult prison and household populations, by receipt of other job-related skill certification: 2003

Literacy scale, population, and skill certification Average

Prose

Prison

No other job certification 252 (2.3)

Received other job certification 270 (3.0)

Household

No other job certification 269 (1.4)*

Received other job certification 291 (1.6)*

Document

Prison

No other job certification 246 (1.9)

Received other job certification 255 (2.4)

Household

No other job certification 266 (1.4)*

Received other job certification 283 (1.5)*

Quantitative

Prison

No other job certification 246 (2.3)

Received other job certification 259 (3.2)

Household

No other job certification 277 (1.4)*

Received other job certification 297 (1.4)*

*Significantly different from prison population.

NOTE: Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons or households.Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental

disabilities (1 percent of the prison sample and 3 percent of the household sample in 2003) are excluded from this table.

SOURCE: U. S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.
133

Appendix D: Estimates and Standard Errors for Tables and Figures

Table D4-14. Estimates and standard errors for Figures 4-14. and 4-15. Percentage of the adult prison and

household populations in each prose, document, and quantitative literacy level, by receipt of information technology skill certification or other job-related skill certification: 2003

Literacy scale, population,

and literacy level Received IT certification No IT certification Received other job certification No other job certification

Prose

Prison

Below Basic 1 (1.4) 100 (1.4) 10 (3.3) 90 (3.3)

Basic 6 (2.4) 94 (2.4) 23 (3.0) 77 (3.0)

Intermediate 8 (2.6) 92 (2.6) 32 (2.9) 68 (2.9)

Proficient 7 (12.2) 93 (12.2) 24 (13.3) 76 (13.3)

Household

Below Basic 3 (0.5) 97 (0.5) 12 (1.1) 88 (1.1)

Basic 6 (0.5) 94 (0.5) 23 (1.0) 77 (1.0)

Intermediate 10 (0.6) 90 (0.6) 31 (0.9) 69 (0.9)

Proficient 9 (1.0) 91 (1.0) 35 (1.8) 65 (1.8)

Document

Prison

Below Basic 2 (2.7) 98 (2.7) 16 (3.9) 84 (3.9)

Basic 5 (2.7) 95 (2.7) 24 (2.7) 76 (2.7)

Intermediate 8 (2.4) 92 (2.4) 28 (2.5) 72 (2.5)

Proficient 10 (22.3) 90 (22.3) 26 (15.8) 74 (15.8)

Household

Below Basic 3 (0.7) 97 (0.7) 13 (1.1) 87 (1.1)

Basic 6 (0.7) 94 (0.7) 23 (1.0) 78 (1.0)

Intermediate 10 (0.6) 90 (0.6) 31 (0.9) 70 (0.9)

Proficient 9 (1.5) 91 (1.5) 31 (2.1) 69 (2.1)

Quantitative

Prison

Below Basic 2 (2.0) 98 (2.0) 19 (2.2) 81 (2.2)

Basic 8 (2.6) 93 (2.6) 28 (2.4) 72 (2.4)

Intermediate 10 (4.6) 90 (4.6) 30 (3.4) 70 (3.4)

Proficient 9 (18.3) 91 (18.3) 26 (11.0) 74 (11.0)

Household

Below Basic 5 (0.5) 95 (0.5) 16 (0.9) 84 (0.9)

Basic 7 (0.5) 93 (0.5) 26 (0.9) 74 (0.9)

Intermediate 9 (0.6) 91 (0.6) 32 (1.0) 68 (1.0)

Proficient 12 (1.1) 88 (1.1) 32 (1.7) 68 (1.7)

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons or households. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent of the prison sample and 3 percent of the household sample in 2003) are excluded from this table.

SOURCE: U. S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

IT certification Other job-related skill certification
134

Literacy Behind Bars

Table D5-1. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 5-1. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy

scores of the adult prison population, by current prison work assignment: 2003

Literacy scale and work assignment Average

Prose

Currently has work assignment 259 (2.2)

No work assignment 251 (3.1)

Document

Currently has work assignment 250 (1.6)

No work assignment 247 (3.1)

Quantitative

Currently has work assignment 252 (2.1)

No work assignment 243 (3.3)

NOTE: Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1

percent in 2003) are excluded from this table.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Table D5-2. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 5-2. Percentage of the adult prison population who had a

current prison work assignment, by prose, document, and quantitative literacy level: 2003

Literacy scale and literacy level Percent

Prose

Below Basic 66 (5.2)

Basic 63 (3.3)

Intermediate 72 (3.1)

Proficient 80 (9.4)

Document

Below Basic 63 (5.6)

Basic 68 (3.4)

Intermediate 69 (3.2)

Proficient 67 (16.3)

Quantitative

Below Basic 63 (3.2)

Basic 70 (2.8)

Intermediate 71 (3.5)

Proficient 69 (9.9)

NOTE: Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1

percent in 2003) are excluded from this table.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.
135

Appendix D: Estimates and Standard Errors for Tables and Figures

Table D5-3. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 5-3. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy

scores of the adult prison population, by frequency of reading as part of current prison work

assignment: 2003

Literacy scale and frequency Average

Prose

Every day 263 (4.0)

Less than every day 257 (5.7)

Never 257 (3.1)

Document

Every day 256 (2.7)

Less than every day 246 (4.2)

Never 246 (2.8)

Quantitative

Every day 255 (3.6)

Less than every day 251 (4.8)

Never 249 (2.9)

NOTE: Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1

percent in 2003) are excluded from this table.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Table D5-4. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 5-4. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy

scores of the adult prison population, by frequency of writing as part of current prison work assignment: 2003

Literacy scale and frequency Average

Prose

Every day 271 (4.8)

Less than every day 245 (4.5)

Never 259 (3.0)

Document

Every day 261 (4.0)

Less than every day 239 (3.4)

Never 248 (2.8)

Quantitative

Every day 264 (4.0)

Less than every day 238 (5.4)

Never 251 (3.3)

NOTE: Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1

percent in 2003) are excluded from this table.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.
136

Literacy Behind Bars

Table D5-5. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 5-5. Percentage of the adult prison population who read

as part of current prison work assignment, by prose literacy level: 2003

Literacy scale and literacy level Never Less than every day Every day

Prose

Below Basic 56 (5.5) 13 (3.8) 31 (5.0)

Basic 51 (3.2) 17 (2.5) 32 (2.9)

Intermediate 51 (3.1) 13 (2.2) 36 (2.9)

Proficient 44 (10.8) 10 (8.3) 46 (11.0)

Document

Below Basic 61 (7.1) 13 (5.5) 26 (5.9) 

Basic 52 (3.8) 16 (3.2) 31 (3.4)

Intermediate 48 (3.4 ) 13 (2.7) 39 (3.2)

Proficient 52 (20.4) 7 (13.5) 41 (19.6)

Quantitative

Below Basic 54 (3.7) 14 (3.5) 32 (3.1)

Basic 51 (3.3) 17 (3.0) 32 (2.7)

Intermediate 49 (4.6) 12 (4.4) 40 (4.1)

Proficient 43 (12.8) 3 (7.5) 54 (12.8)

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this table. Document and quantitative literacy results are also included in this table for reference.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Table D5-6. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 5-6. Percentage of the adult prison population who wrote

as part of current prison work assignment, by prose and document literacy level: 2003

Literacy scale and literacy level Never Less than every day Every day

Prose

Below Basic 58 (5.7) 25 (5.4) 17 (4.0)

Basic 54 (3.4) 25 (3.1) 21 (2.8)

Intermediate 57 (3.3) 15 (2.5) 29 (3.1)

Proficient 57 (11.2) 4 (4.9) 40 (11.1)

Document

Below Basic 64 (8.2) 23 (7.7) 13 (5.8)

Basic 54 (4.4) 25 (3.9) 20 (4.0)

Intermediate 54 (4.0) 15 (3.3) 31 (3.7)

Proficient 69 (23.6) 4 (9.3) 28 (23.4)

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this table.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.
137

Appendix D: Estimates and Standard Errors for Tables and Figures

Table D5-8. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 5-8. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy

scores of the adult prison population, by frequency of library use: 2003

Literacy scale and frequency Average

Prose

Daily 255 (5.7)

Weekly 266 (2.8)

Monthly 256 (5.0)

Once or twice a year 256 (5.7)

Never 243 (3.6)

Document

Daily 261 (4.0)

Weekly 242 (4.1)

Monthly 237 (8.1)

Once or twice a year 234 (7.4)

Never 248 (2.8)

Quantitative

Daily 255 (6.7)

Weekly 258 (2.9)

Monthly 252 (4.7)

Once or twice a year 244 (6.5)

Never 231 (4.1)

NOTE: Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1

percent in 2003) are excluded from this table.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Table D5-7. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 5-7. Percentage of the adult prison population who

attempted to use the prison library, by number of days it took to obtain access: 2003

Number of days Percent

Less than 2 days 59 (3.5)

2 to 6 days 22 (2.4)

7 to 10 days 10 (1.3)

More than 10 days 10 (1.8)

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this table.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.
138

Literacy Behind Bars

Table D5-9. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 5-9. Percentage of the adult prison population who used

the library, by prose literacy level: 2003

Literacy scale and literacy level Never Once or twice a year Monthly Weekly Daily

Prose

Below Basic 38 (4.5) 9 (3.0) 19 (3.9) 23 (4.0) 11 (3.5)

Basic 26 (2.4) 10 (1.7) 19 (2.3) 33 (2.8) 12 (2.0)

Intermediate 19 (2.2) 10 (1.6) 19 (2.4) 42 (2.9) 11 (2.0)

Proficient 19 (7.0) 6 (5.7) 18 (9.4) 48 (11.7) 10 (7.6)

Document

Below Basic 39 (5.6) 11 (3.5) 14 (5.7) 24 (4.7) 12 (3.5)

Basic 26 (2.8) 9 (1.7) 20 (3.6) 35 (3.3) 10 (2.0)

Intermediate 20 (2.4) 9 (1.5) 20 (3.1) 39 (3.0) 12 (1.9)

Proficient 15 (10.4) 14 (11.8) 15 (19.1) 37 (18.5) 19 (14.8)

Quantitative

Below Basic 34 (3.0) 10 (1.4) 18 (2.7) 28 (2.9) 10 (2.2)

Basic 20 (2.2) 9 (1.2) 20 (2.6) 39 (2.9) 12 (2.1)

Intermediate 17 (2.8) 9 (1.6) 19 (3.7) 42 (4.2) 13 (3.3)

Proficient 18 (8.0) 16 (7.2) 18 (12.4) 36 (13.4) 11 (10.2)

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this table. Document and quantitative literacy results are also included in this table for reference.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Table D5-10. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 5-10. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy

scores of the adult prison population, by computer use for various tasks: 2003

Literacy scale and computer use Word processing CD ROM Spreadsheet

Prose

Used 265 (5.1) 271 (5.2) 275 (7.7)

Never used 255 (2.0) 255 (2.0) 256 (1.9)

Document

Used 259 (3.7) 260 (4.1) 257 (6.8)

Never used 247 (1.7) 247 (1.7) 248 (1.6)

Quantitative

Used 258 (4.8) 269 (5.2) 263 (8.1)

Never used 248 (2.0) 247 (2.0) 248 (2.0)

NOTE: Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1

percent in 2003) are excluded from this table.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.
139

Appendix D: Estimates and Standard Errors for Tables and Figures

Table D5-11. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 5-11. Percentage of the adult prison population who

wrote using a word processing program, by prose literacy level: 2003 

Literacy level Percent

Below Basic 8 (2.9)

Basic 12 (2.0)

Intermediate 15 (2.1)

Proficient 12 (9.9)

NOTE: Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1

percent in 2003) are excluded from this table.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Table D5-12. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 5-12. Percentage of the adult prison population who

looked up information on a computer CD-ROM, by document literacy level: 2003

Literacy level Percent

Below Basic 3 (5.0)

Basic 8 (4.8)

Intermediate 11 (3.9)

Proficient 6 (22.6)

NOTE: Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1

percent in 2003) are excluded from this table.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Table D5-13. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 5-13. Percentage of the adult prison population who used

a computer spreadsheet program, by quantitative literacy level: 2003

Literacy level Percent

Below Basic 4 (1.1)

Basic 6 (1.1)

Intermediate 7 (1.8)

Proficient 13 (8.2)

NOTE: Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1

percent in 2003) are excluded from this table.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.
140

Literacy Behind Bars

Table D5-14. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 5-14. Percentage of the adult prison and household populations who read each of the following printed materials in English: newspapers or magazines,

books, letters and notes, by frequency of reading: 2003

Printed material and population Every day A few times a week Once a week Less than once a week Never

Newspapers or magazines 

Prison 43 (1.5) 27 (1.5) 10 (1.0) 10 (0.9) 10 (1.1)

Household 48 (0.7)* 25 (0.5) 12 (0.4) 9 (0.3) 6 (0.4)*

Books

Prison 50 (1.7) 22 (1.4) 8 (0.9) 12 (0.9) 8 (1.0)

Household 32 (0.6)* 20 (0.4) 10 (0.3)* 25 (0.5)* 13 (0.6)*

Letters and notes 

Prison 33 (1.7) 33 (1.4) 13 (1.1) 14 (1.1) 8 (1.0)

Household 51 (0.8)* 20 (0.5)* 10 (0.3)* 13 (0.4) 7 (0.4)

*Significantly different from prison population.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons and households. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent of the prison sample and 3 percent of the household sample in 2003) are excluded from this table.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Table D5-15. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 5-15. Average prose and document literacy scores of the

adult prison population, by frequency of reading each of the following printed materials in

English: newspapers or magazines, books, letters and notes: 2003

Literacy scale and printed material Every day A few times a week Once a week Less than once a week Never

Prose

Newspapers or magazines 263 (2.5) 263 (2.6) 249 (5.5) 254 (5.3) 208 (8.2)

Books 266 (2.0) 257 (4.5) 252 (6.2) 249 (4.7) 192 (10.5)

Letters and notes 263 (2.5) 261 (2.7) 260 (5.8) 249 (4.1) 201 (8.1)

Document

Newspapers or magazines 252 (2.1) 250 (2.2) 250 (6.6) 245 (4.2) 216 (9.0)

Books 255 (1.9) 248 (3.4) 243 (6.7) 246 (5.2) 191 (11.0)

Letters and notes 251 (2.5) 253 (2.6) 253 (4.6) 246 (4.9) 189 (10.1)

NOTE: Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1

percent in 2003) are excluded from this table.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.
141

Appendix D: Estimates and Standard Errors for Tables and Figures

Table D5-16. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 5-16. Percentage of the adult prison population who read

each of the following printed materials in English: newspapers or magazines, books, letters and

notes, by prose literacy level: 2003

Printed material, literacy scale 

and literacy level Every day A few times a week Once a week Less than once a week Never

Newspapers and magazines

Prose

Below Basic 29 (4.1) 17 (3.5) 13 (2.5) 10 (2.4) 32 (4.0)

Basic 44 (2.7) 29 (2.6) 9 (1.3) 11 (1.5) 7 (1.2)

Intermediate 48 (2.7) 31 (2.6) 8 (1.2) 9 (1.4) 5 (1.0)

Proficient 47 (11.9) 23 (10.7) 15 (5.9) 10 (7.0) 5 (2.9)

Document

Below Basic 33 (4.7) 20 (4.4) 12 (2.8) 9 (3.7) 26 (4.0)

Basic 43 (3.1) 30 (3.0) 8 (1.4) 11 (2.4) 8 (1.2)

Intermediate 46 (2.7) 28 (2.6) 10 (1.4) 10 (1.9) 6 (1.0)

Proficient 42 (16.1) 18 (13.2) 21 (11.5) 3 (6.4) 16 (7.7)

Books

Prose

Below Basic 25 (4.1) 22 (3.8) 10 (2.3) 14 (2.9) 30 (4.1)

Basic 52 (2.8) 21 (2.3) 9 (1.3) 13 (1.6) 5 (1.2)

Intermediate 59 (2.7) 22 (2.3) 7 (1.2) 10 (1.5) 2 (0.7)

Proficient 50 (12.8) 28 (11.0) 14 (6.3) 7 (4.8) 2 (2.1)

Document

Below Basic 32 (5.2) 16 (6.0) 11 (2.8) 14 (3.3) 28 (4.6)

Basic 50 (3.7) 25 (4.0) 8 (1.4) 11 (1.8) 6 (1.2)

Intermediate 57 (3.2) 22 (3.3) 7 (1.2) 11 (1.6) 3 (0.8)

Proficient 56 (17.8) 7 (13.1) 21 (12.1) 14 (10.8) 2 (2.6)

Letters and notes

Prose

Below Basic 20 (3.9) 27 (3.6) 10 (3.1) 17 (2.9) 26 (3.7)

Basic 34 (2.7) 32 (2.3) 13 (2.0) 15 (1.7) 6 (1.2)

Intermediate 38 (2.7) 34 (2.3) 13 (2.0) 12 (1.5) 3 (0.7)

Proficient 29 (11.2) 45 (10.9) 15 (9.7) 10 (5.4) 1 (0.8)

Document

Below Basic 24 (5.4) 23 (5.1) 9 (4.5) 18 (3.5) 27 (4.3)

Basic 36 (3.7) 33 (3.4) 13 (3.2) 13 (1.9) 6 (1.1)

Intermediate 35 (3.1) 35 (2.9) 14 (2.7) 13 (1.7) 3 (0.7)

Proficient 27 (19.9) 35 (20.7) 8 (15.0) 26 (15.1) 4 (3.5)

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this table. Document literacy results are also included in this table for reference.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.
142

Literacy Behind Bars

Table D6-1. Estimates and standard errors for Table 6-1. Percentage of the adult prison population in selected

groups: 1992 and 2003

Characteristic 1992 2003 

Type of offense

Violent 44 (2.0) 47 (2.1)

Property 18 (1.3) 15 (1.1)*

Drug 25 (1.6) 23 (1.9)

Public order 13 (1.2) 15 (1.4)

Expected length of incarceration

0–60 months 64 (2.2) 52 (2.4)*

61–120 months 20 (1.6) 21 (1.3)

121+ months 16 (1.3) 28 (2.3)*

Expected date of release

2 years or less 66 (2.3) 62 (2.3)

More than 2 years 34 (2.3) 38 (2.3)

Previous criminal history

None 21 (1.4) 16 (1.4)*

Probation only 14 (1.3) 11 (1.1)

Incarceration only 16 (1.4) 10 (0.9)*

Probation and incarceration 48 (1.8) 64 (1.7)*

*Significantly different from 1992.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (3 percent in 1992 and 1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this table. Results are based on inmates self report, not prison records.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey and 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.
143

Appendix D: Estimates and Standard Errors for Tables and Figures

Table D6-3. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 6-2. Percentage of the adult prison population in each

prose, document, and quantitative literacy level, by type of offense: 1992 and 2003

Literacy scale and literacy level 1992 2003 1992 2003 1992 2003 1992 2003

Prose

Below basic 23 (2.0) 17 (2.2)* 16 (3.5) 11 (3.0) 26 (3.3) 19 (2.7) 23 (3.8) 16 (3.2)

Basic 40 (1.9) 40 (2.5) 40 (4.0) 41 (5.2) 39 (2.6) 38 (2.9) 41 (3.8) 39 (3.7)

Intermediate 34 (2.1) 41 (2.6)* 41 (4.5) 46 (5.5) 33 (3.0) 39 (3.0) 34 (4.3) 42 (3.8)

Proficient 3 (0.9) 3 (1.0) 3 (1.7) 3 (2.1) 3 (1.1) 5 (1.5) 2 (1.3) 3 (1.4)

Document 

Below basic 24 (2.7) 14 (2.6)* 17 (2.6) 9 (3.3) 24 (3.2) 16 (3.5) 22 (4.5) 18 (3.5)

Basic 33 (2.3) 38 (3.1) 31 (2.6) 31 (5.4) 33 (2.3) 36 (3.8) 35 (4.6) 33 (3.6)

Intermediate 40 (3.0) 47 (3.6) 49 (3.5) 58 (5.9) 39 (3.3) 47 (4.6) 43 (5.4) 46 (4.3)

Proficient 3 (1.1) 1 (0.8) 3 (1.2) 2 (2.2) 4 (1.3) 2 (1.3) 1 (1.1) 3 (1.6)

Quantitative 

Below basic 52 (2.6) 39 (2.5)* 44 (4.8) 35 (4.9) 49 (3.8) 41 (3.8) 51 (4.8) 39 (3.9)

Basic 31 (1.7) 40 (2.1)* 37 (3.8) 43 (4.4) 31 (2.4) 38 (3.1) 31 (3.3) 37 (3.4)

Intermediate 15 (1.5) 19 (1.7) 17 (3.3) 21 (3.6) 17 (2.3) 19 (2.7) 15 (2.8) 21 (2.8)

Proficient 3 (0.8) 2 (0.7) 2 (1.3) 2 (1.4) 3 (1.3) 2 (0.9) 3 (1.3) 3 (1.4)

*Significantly different from 1992.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (3 percent in 1992 and 1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this table.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey and 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Violent Property Drug Public order

Table D6-2. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 6-1. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy

scores of the adult prison population, by type of offense: 1992 and 2003

Type of offense 1992 2003 1992 2003 1992 2003

Violent 247 (2.8) 256 (2.7)* 241 (3.8) 247 (2.2) 231 (4.4) 249 (2.6)*

Property 257 (4.3) 263 (4.2) 251 (3.5) 258 (3.6) 243 (5.3) 253 (4.7)

Drug 243 (4.4) 255 (4.2)* 240 (4.8) 247 (3.5) 233 (6.8) 247 (4.0)

Public order 245 (5.2) 258 (3.6) 240 (5.2) 248 (4.1) 233 (7.0) 251 (4.4)*

*Significantly different from 1992.

NOTE: Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (3

percent in 1992 and 1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this table.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey and 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Prose Document Quantitative
144

Literacy Behind Bars

Table D6-5. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 6-4. Percentage of the adult prison population in each

prose, document, and quantitative literacy level, by expected length of incarceration: 1992 and

2003

Literacy scale and literacy level 1992 2003 1992 2003 1992 2003

Prose

Below basic 21 (1.9) 15 (2.0)* 22 (3.3) 17 (3.2) 24 (4.2) 16 (2.1)

Basic 39 (1.9) 40 (2.2) 37 (3.2) 41 (3.5) 45 (4.0) 39 (2.7)

Intermediate 37 (2.2) 42 (2.3) 37 (3.6) 39 (3.7) 30 (4.1) 43 (2.6)*

Proficient 3 (0.8) 3 (1.0) 5 (1.6) 3 (1.5) 1 (1.1) 3 (1.0)

Document 

Below basic 18 (1.8) 16 (2.3) 27 (3.5) 14 (2.8)* 29 (6.3) 13 (3.2)*

Basic 32 (1.8) 35 (2.5) 32 (2.7) 34 (3.5) 37 (5.1) 38 (4.2)

Intermediate 47 (2.3) 47 (2.9) 37 (3.7) 50 (4.1)* 33 (6.7) 48 (4.8)

Proficient 3 (0.9) 2 (0.9) 4 (1.4) 3 (1.5) 2 (2.0) 1 (1.0)

Quantitative 

Below basic 49 (2.4) 40 (1.9)* 46 (4.3) 37 (5.0) 58 (5.2) 39 (3.1)*

Basic 33 (1.7) 37 (1.7) 31 (2.6) 42 (4.3)* 31 (3.9) 42 (2.6)*

Intermediate 16 (1.4) 21 (1.4)* 19 (2.8) 19 (3.6) 10 (2.6) 17 (2.2)*

Proficient 3 (0.8) 3 (0.6) 3 (1.3) 2 (1.3) 1 (0.9) 2 (0.7)

*Significantly different from 1992.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (3 percent in 1992 and 1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this table.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey and 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Table D6-4. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 6-3. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy

scores of the adult prison population, by expected length of incarceration: 1992 and 2003

Expected length of incarceration 1992 2003 1992 2003 1992 2003

0–60 months 250 (2.6) 258 (2.4)* 248 (2.7) 248 (2.4) 235 (3.7) 249 (2.4)*

61–120 months 252 (5.1) 254 (3.9) 239 (5.0) 253 (3.1)* 240 (7.1) 252 (3.9)

121+ months 242 (4.1) 258 (2.7)* 233 (6.9) 248 (2.4)* 223 (6.5) 247 (2.9)*

*Significantly different from 1992.

NOTE: Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (3

percent in 1992 and 1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this table.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey and 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Prose Document Quantitative

0–60 months 61–120 months 121+ months
145

Appendix D: Estimates and Standard Errors for Tables and Figures

Table D6-6. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 6-5. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy

scores of the adult prison population, by expected date of release: 1992 and 2003

Expected date of release 1992 2003 1992 2003 1992 2003

2 years or less 251 (2.7) 257 (2.3) 246 (2.9) 249 (2.1) 235 (3.8) 249 (2.3)*

More than 2 years 247 (3.0) 257 (2.9)* 240 (4.2) 248 (2.3) 233 (4.5) 249 (2.7)*

*Significantly different from 1992.

NOTE: Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (3

percent in 1992 and 1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this table.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey and 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Prose Document Quantitative

Table D6-7. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 6-6. Percentage of the adult prison population in each

prose, document, and quantitative literacy level, by expected date of release: 1992 and 2003

Literacy scale and literacy level 1992 2003 1992 2003

Prose

Below basic 22 (1.9) 15 (2.0)* 22 (2.7) 17 (2.2)

Basic 38 (1.8) 41 (2.3) 42 (2.6) 37 (2.2)

Intermediate 37 (2.1) 41 (2.3) 34 (2.7) 42 (2.4)*

Proficient 4 (0.9) 3 (0.9) 2 (0.8) 4 (1.0)

Document 

Below basic 20 (1.9) 15 (2.0) 25 (2.9) 14 (2.8)*

Basic 32 (1.8) 35 (2.3) 33 (2.4) 36 (3.3)

Intermediate 44 (2.4) 48 (2.6) 39 (3.3) 49 (4.0)

Proficient 3 (1.0) 2 (0.9) 3 (1.2) 1 (0.8)

Quantitative 

Below basic 49 (2.5) 40 (2.0)* 51 (3.0) 38 (3.0)*

Basic 32 (1.7) 38 (1.8)* 31 (2.0) 41 (2.3)*

Intermediate 16 (1.5) 20 (1.4)* 15 (1.8) 19 (2.0)

Proficient 3 (0.8) 2 (0.6) 2 (0.9) 2 (0.8)

*Significantly different from 1992.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (3 percent in 1992 and 1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this table.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey and 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

2 years or less More than 2 years
146

Literacy Behind Bars

Table D6-8. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 6-7. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy

scores of the adult prison population, by previous criminal history: 1992 and 2003

Previous criminal history 1992 2003 1992 2003 1992 2003

None 252 (5.8) 248 (6.6) 249 (5.3) 248 (5.9) 240 (6.1) 250 (5.5)

Probation only 249 (4.7) 259 (5.7) 242 (5.0) 256 (4.4)* 228 (7.4) 257 (5.9)*

Incarceration only 244 (4.2) 252 (6.8) 238 (4.3) 237 (3.7) 241 (5.3) 249 (5.1)

Probation and incarceration 248 (2.3) 258 (2.2)* 243 (3.2) 249 (2.0) 231 (4.3) 247 (2.5)*

*Significantly different from 1992.

NOTE: Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (3

percent in 1992 and 1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this table.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey and 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Prose Document Quantitative

Table D6-9. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 6-8. Percentage of the adult prison population in each

prose, document, and quantitative literacy level, by previous criminal history: 1992 and 2003

Literacy scale and literacy level 1992 2003 1992 2003 1992 2003 1992 2003

Prose

Below basic 22 (3.6) 29 (3.6) 23 (3.1) 14 (4.7) 27 (2.9) 21 (3.5) 21 (2.1) 13 (1.9)*

Basic 37 (3.0) 31 (2.3) 38 (3.2) 40 (5.4) 37 (2.8) 38 (4.1) 42 (2.1) 42 (2.8)

Intermediate 37 (3.7) 33 (3.0) 34 (3.2) 43 (5.7) 33 (2.8) 37 (4.4) 35 (2.3) 43 (2.9)*

Proficient 5 (1.8) 8 (1.7) 4 (1.6) 3 (2.4) 4 (1.1) 5 (2.2) 2 (0.7) 2 (0.9)

Document 

Below basic 21 (3.4) 21 (3.5) 23 (3.8) 7 (8.0) 25 (3.7) 20 (6.1) 22 (2.1) 14 (2.1)*

Basic 30 (2.7) 30 (2.6) 33 (3.1) 35 (12.6) 34 (3.1) 42 (6.7) 33 (1.9) 36 (2.6)

Intermediate 45 (3.9) 43 (3.4) 40 (4.3) 57 (13.9) 40 (3.7) 37 (7.3) 42 (2.4) 49 (3.0)

Proficient 5 (1.7) 6 (1.8) 3 (1.4) 1 (2.5) 2 (1.1) 1 (1.1) 3 (1.0) 2 (0.8)

Quantitative 

Below basic 47 (3.4) 38 (4.0) 54 (4.5) 32 (6.7)* 44 (4.1) 38 (4.4) 52 (2.9) 41 (2.5)*

Basic 30 (2.1) 37 (2.9)* 28 (2.8) 42 (5.9)* 38 (3.2) 39 (4.0) 32 (2.0) 39 (2.0)*

Intermediate 19 (2.2) 21 (2.6) 15 (2.6) 23 (4.8) 16 (2.6) 20 (3.3) 14 (1.7) 18 (1.7)

Proficient 5 (1.4) 4 (1.4) 3 (1.2) 2 (1.7) 2 (1.1) 2 (1.4) 2 (0.7) 2 (0.7)

*Significantly different from 1992.

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (3 percent in 1992 and 1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this table.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey and 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

None Probation only Incarceration only

Probation 

and incarceration