Offender Rehabilitation Issues

""In 1974 sociologist Robert Martinson and colleagues published an apparently negative meta-analysis of 231 research studies on prison education and programming. The study, entitled ""What Works?"" was published in the journal The Public Interest and covered research over 22 years. The impact was devastating. Critics quickly concluded that nothing works, though Martinson never used those words and later sought to repute that interpretation. Yet, two decades later Congress passed an act eliminating Pell grants in a frenzy of tough-on-crime legislation, which had provided college-in-prison education from hundreds of postsecondary institutions. Ubah offers a lugubrious assessment of an important topic. He provides a useful observation: Martinson's analysis, carefully read, showed that close to half of prison education programs had some salutary benefits. For instance, a report from the RAND Corporation found that in-prison college education reduced recidivism by 43 percent. More recent studies of prison-based education also ""overwhelmingly indicate"" that education in prison reduces recidivism rates (p. 71). Pell grants are again becoming available to prison systems across the nation, raising the hope that untapped potential behind the walls can be developed. Recommended. Faculty and professionals."" --Choice Reviews ""Many books have been published on institutional corrections, but this Offender Rehabilitation Issues text provides the most effective mechanisms for ameliorating recidivism rate. Undeniably, recidivism rate is the most significant, vital dependable measure of the effectiveness of a correctional strategy."" --Obi N. I. Ebbe, Professor Emeritus, The University Tennesse, Chattanooga ""Ubah takes a detailed historical and critical look at post-secondary correctional education from its origins to today's renewal of Pell Grants for those incarcerated. He posits that critical cautions be employed when relying on, and/or neglecting the recidivism measure, self-selection biases, and the short-comings of individual change perspectives. His grounded approach goes deeper than much of the previous literature, and the complexities identified promote a more meaningful consideration of the context, quality, humanity, and expectations of higher ed in prison."" --Cathryn A. Chappell, Ashland University In 1974 sociologist Robert Martinson and colleagues published an apparently negative meta-analysis of 231 research studies on prison education and programming. The study, entitled ""What Works?"" was published in the journal The Public Interest and covered research over 22 years. The impact was devastating. Critics quickly concluded that nothing works, though Martinson never used those words and later sought to repute that interpretation. Yet, two decades later Congress passed an act eliminating Pell grants in a frenzy of tough-on-crime legislation, which had provided college-in-prison education from hundreds of postsecondary institutions. Ubah offers a lugubrious assessment of an important topic. He provides a useful observation: Martinson's analysis, carefully read, showed that close to half of prison education programs had some salutary benefits. For instance, a report from the RAND Corporation found that in-prison college education reduced recidivism by 43 percent. More recent studies of prison-based education also ""overwhelmingly indicate"" that education in prison reduces recidivism rates (p. 71). Pell grants are again becoming available to prison systems across the nation, raising the hope that untapped potential behind the walls can be developed. Recommended. Faculty and professionals. Many books have been published on institutional corrections, but this Offender Rehabilitation Issues text provides the most effective mechanisms for ameliorating recidivism rate. Undeniably, recidivism rate is the most significant, vital dependable measure of the effectiveness of a correctional strategy. Ubah takes a detailed historical and critical look at post-secondary correctional education from its origins to today's renewal of Pell Grants for those incarcerated. He posits that critical cautions be employed when relying on, and/or neglecting the recidivism measure, self-selection biases, and the short-comings of individual change perspectives. His grounded approach goes deeper than much of the previous literature, and the complexities identified promote a more meaningful consideration of the context, quality, humanity, and expectations of higher ed in prison.