Factors influencing the design, establishment, administration, and governance of correctional education for females.

Ellis, Johnica ; McFadden, Cheryl ; Colaric, Susan 等

Introduction

There is a growing concern about the increase in the prison populations and offenders being released into society (Lawrence, Mears, Dubin, & Travis, 2002). One in every thirty-two Americans passes through a correctional institution at some point in his or her life (Spangenburg, 2004). This includes a significant increase in female offenders. Between 1990 and 2000 the number of women in prison rose 108% (Hardyman & Van Voorhis, 2004). Because of the increase in female offender populations, correctional education for females has become a critical policy issue. Educational leaders, correctional leaders, and politicians are increasingly coming under pressure to provide more programs with a greater variety to female offenders (Bloom, Owen, Covington, & Raeder, 2003; Hardyman & Van Voorhis, 2004). These pressures have originated from various sources including female activist groups, civil rights groups, litigation, and the ever-growing presence of women in correctional and educational leadership roles (Bloom et al., 2003; Sharp, 2003).

Review of Literature

To lay the ground work for this study a review of the current literature examined (a) the history of female correctional education; (b) program design including characteristics of female offenders and effective programming components; and, (c) administration and governance issues including collaboration and cooperation among leadership of the institutions and assessment.

History of Female Correctional Education

In 1873, the first reformatory for women opened in Indiana. The primary educational goal of this all female prison was to turn the women into "good housewives" (Sharp, 2003). By 1990, the nation had 71 female-only facilities; five years later, that number had jumped to 104 (Sharp).

Correctional programming for both women and men suffered tremendous cutbacks under the "get tough on crime" sentiments of the 1980s and 1990s (Bazos & Hausman, 2003; Hardyman & Van Voorhis, 2004; Harrison & Beck, 2002). Access to college education was limited when prisoners were declared ineligible for Pell Grants in 1994 (Bloom et al., 2003). As of 1996, only 52% of correctional facilities for women offered postsecondary education. Educational opportunities were further limited by the Higher Education Act of 1998, which denied eligibility for students convicted of drug offenses (Bloom et al.). Although there was some progress in correctional education for females between the 1800s and 1900s, today many prisons still base their treatment of women on male offending patterns and programming (Sharp, 2003) and programs are typically less available to female prisoners than to male prisoners (Bloom et al.; Hardyman & Van Voorhis).

Program Design and Establishment

Many systems lack a written policy on the management and supervision of female inmates (Bloom et al., 2003). Morash and Bynum (1999) have found that at the policy and system levels, the reality of managing a women's institution is often ignored or dismissed. They report that institutional level managers often feel that their superiors fail to recognize gender distinctions. The lack of written policy addressing gender differences between male and female offenders often put managers and line staff in a quandary because behavioral and situational differences between female and male offenders cannot be dealt with if there is no specific policy governing the action (Bloom et al.). Although female offender populations continue to rise, correctional systems are ill equipped to address the security, programming and special needs presented by women offenders (Bloom et al.; Hardyman & Van Voorhis, 2004; Van Voorhis, Peiler, Presser, Spiropoulis, & Sutherland, 2001).

Characteristics of Female Offenders

Inmates need to be treated as adults and the individualized teaching emphasis of adult education is consistent with the educational needs of inmate learners (Fox, 1987). Owen (1998) argued that it is essential to understand a woman's life prior to incarceration- her pathways to imprisonment- to appreciate her experiences while in prison. Recent research has established that women offenders differ from their male counterparts regarding personal histories and pathways to crime (Belknap, 2001; Bloom et al., 2003; Hardyman & Van Voorhis, 2004; Van Voorhis et al., 2001). These include educational, economical, cultural and self-conceptual pathways (Sharp, 2003). Women prisoners are likely to be poor, undereducated, and single parents (Belknap, 1996; Bilchik & Peters, 1998; Bloom et al.).

Owen (1998) found, approximately 44% of women incarcerated in state prisons have not received a high school diploma. Studies also show a close connection between recidivism rates and the provision of suitable educational services for the incarcerated and those leaving prison. According to Spangenburg, "those who participate in correctional education programs have substantially lower rates of re-arrest, reconviction, and re-incarceration than people who leave prison without educational intervention" (p. 2).

Female prisoners have had more difficult economic circumstances compared to male prisoners (Bloom et al., 2003). Nearly 6 in 10 grew up in a single parent home (Belknap, 1996; Bilchik & Peters, 1998, Bloom et al.). Approximately 4 in 10 women were employed full-time prior to their arrest, compared to 6 in 10 men. Nearly 37% of female prisoners had incomes of less than $600 per month prior to their arrest, and almost 30% of these women reported receiving some type of state assistance (Bloom et al.; Sharp, 2003).

These women have been verbally and physically abused most of their lives and this is a major factor in women's incarceration experiences (Bilchik & Peters, 1998; Bloom et al., 2003; Mageehon, 2003; Van Voorhis et al., 2001). A national survey indicated women prisoners have far higher rates of physical and sexual abuse than their male counterparts. The Bureau of Justice Statistics (2001) reported that women in prison are three times more likely to have a history of abuse than men in prison. More than 4 in 10 female adult inmates reported a history of physical or sexual abuse (Belknap, 1996; Bilchik & Peters). Sharp (2003) found 43% of the women surveyed indicated they had been abused at least once in their life. Approximately one-quarter of imprisoned women reported prior physical and/or sexual abuse by a family member (Bloom et al.). A 1996 study by Jordan, Schlenger, Fairbank, and Cadell, found that more than 80% of the women incarcerated in North Carolina's state prisons had been physically and/or sexually abused.

Effective Programming Components

A holistic analysis of programming for women offenders identifies components that are necessary for effective programming (Belknap & Holsinger, 1998; Bilchik & Peters, 1998; Bloom et al., 2003; Hardyman & Van Voorhis, 2004; Sharp, 2003). Services and programming should be based on women's individual circumstances and needs. Programs and services should be gender sensitive and should provide parity with men's prisons, but be women-centered. Supervision and management of women prisoners should be subject to periodic evaluation and ongoing supervision. Finally, staff should be carefully selected, trained and supervised and should be dedicated, caring, and qualified.

One of the primary reasons an inmate enrolls in an education program is to prepare for a job (Steurer et al., 2001). These programs should emphasize the practical application of the skills gained after the inmate is released from prison (Lawrence et al., 2002; Steurer et al.). Women should receive instruction close enough to time of release for their skills to be usable on release and still fresh in the women's minds (Lawrence et al.; Sharp, 2003). Programming should proceed through a series of phases that take inmates logically from one skill level to the next, building on the skills gained in each previous phase. These phases span an inmate's entire incarceration period, from assessment and diagnosis through work release and parole. There is a need for coordination and articulations among correctional facilities to ensure continuity of education as inmates transfer from one prison to another (Sharp). An inmate may start a program of study at one facility only to find that the courses she needs to continue that program are not available at the facility to which she transfers (Lawrence et al.).

There is a growing body of research, which documents the need for gender-specific programming (Bilchik & Peters, 1998; Bloom et al., 2003; Hardyman & Van Voorhis, 2004; Sharp, 2003; Van Voorhis et al., 2001). Gender-specific programming creates an environment that reflects an understanding of the realities of women's lives and addresses the issues of women (Bilchik & Peters; Bloom et al.). Gender-specific programming reinforces "femaleness" as a positive identity with inherent strengths. Merely isolating female offenders by gender is not the same as comprehensive gender-specific programming. Solutions cannot be fragmented or offered on a piecemeal basis (Bilchik & Peters). Because of recent litigation for parity, the current legal environment is favorable toward gender-specific programming (Bloom et al.; Hardyman & Van Voorhis).

Administration and Governance

Education programs are among the best management tools in corrections because they keep inmates busy in a positive way (Spangenburg, 2004). The preferred management style recognizes women's greater concern with interpersonal relationships and expression of emotions by including skills such as active listening, patience in explaining rules and expectations, awareness of emotional dynamics, and the capacity to respond firmly, fairly, and consistently. To achieve this style, administrators recommended being fair but strict, training staff to increase sensitivity to female inmate needs, hiring more female staff, and involving inmates in decisions making and carrying out some of the responsibilities (Bilchik & Peters, 1998; Bloom et al., 2003; Sharp, 2003).

Collaboration and Cooperation Among Leadership of Institutions

Differing mandates and goals (security vs. rehabilitation) can exist between correction officials and educators. The drive of the correctional leader to provide safety and security of the institution may go against the educational leader's responsibility to educate the inmate. This conflict may bring inconsistency, uncertainty, and distrust to the relationship. These barriers can block lines of communication, which may inhibit implementation and organizational learning. Correctional and educational leaders must collaborate and cooperate to successfully provide education to offenders (Spangenburg, 2004).

Correctional Institution Leadership

Lawrence et al. (2002) found in an era of prison expansion and constraints on prison budgets, allocating space and resources for correctional education was not a top priority for correction managers. Such factors directly affect programming and are among those most commonly cited by correctional officials as barriers to effective programming. Prison administrators describe their top priority as maintaining control of the prison environment to maximize the safety of guards and prisoners (Amtmann & Evans, 2001; Jensen, 2003; Lawrence et al.). Kerka (1995) found that education was secondary to security.

Higher Education Institution Leadership

According to Jurich, Casper, and Hull (2001), "Correctional educators are challenged to bring inquiry and learning to places mainly designed for custody and control ... and safety and security concerns take precedence over educational practices" (p. 23). Similarly, Bouchard (2001) asserts the institutional culture of a correctional facility is that of security. Higher education staff are expected to adhere to all the rules and security procedures of the Department of Corrections and the individual facilities they work in which results in educational staff being responsible to two masters. Still, educational staff is held responsible above all else for individual education outcomes (Jensen, 2003).

Differing mandates and divergent areas of focus produce significant potential for inconsistency, confusion and disagreement (Burke & Keeley, 2002). Formal contractual agreements between correctional and educational institutions are seriously needed (Amtmann & Evans, 2001; Grasty, 1988; Jensen, 2003). Communication, coordination, and collaborative problem solving will result in the educational and correctional leadership experiencing personal ownership of the vision, mission, and goals of the organization. The collaboration should produce a win-win situation (Amtmann & Evans). The determination to overcome established policies that produced inefficiencies and de-optimized the human potential of both organizations will set the collaboration of correctional and educational leadership on the road to positive organizational alignment. The development of cross-functional focus teams with persons representing all departments will foster organizational synergy through increasing communication and collaboration. Pooling of information across functions is the underpinning of organizational learning. The quality of organization will be improved through cooperative efforts by both educational and correctional leadership. Territoriality and sentimentalism will be replaced with personal productivity, professional achievement, and ultimately, organizational synergy (Jensen, 2003).

Assessment

Women's needs differ from those of men but these needs are seldom considered by institutional needs assessment systems (Bloom et al., 2003). According to Van Voorhis et al. (2001), there are very few validation studies involving women offenders. Although it has long been considered unethical to apply any assessment to a population other than the one used for its construction and validation, failure to validate correctional assessments to specific populations is a common observation. Studies cannot be conducted on men and generalized to women (Van Voorhis et al.).

Without careful program design, implementation, and monitoring it is impossible to know whether or how programs are effective. Researchers need to be involved at all stages of development, relying on both process and outcome evaluations to improve program design and operations. This involvement ensures ineffective programs are eliminated or significantly changed (Lawrence et al., 2002).

Methodology

The purpose of this study was to investigate factors influencing the organizational design, establishment, administration, and governance of correctional education for females. A case study analysis approach was used to gather and analyze data, and provide a detailed account of female correctional education at a single institution. The goal was to provide an in depth analysis of one institution. This particular facility was selected because it: (a) offered correctional education through a community college/university, (b) was a minimum-security unit, (c) had a population range between 350 and 550, and (d) was located within the geographic area of North Carolina where the researchers were located.

Five questions were used to frame this study: (1) Do higher educational leaders and correctional leaders collaborate on the design, establishment, administration and governance of correctional education for females and if so, how?; (2) What factors influence the selection of services, targeted populations, and desired outcomes?; (3) Who performs the research on correctional education theory and practice and how is the research used?; (4) What human, physical, financial and other resources are needed for the design, establishment, and administration of correctional education and how are these resources acquired?; and (5) How is correctional education assessed and how is this information used?

Data Collection Methods

Data were collected from the participating site through semi-structured interviews, document analysis, and site observations. Interviews were conducted with the administrators and staff of the North Carolina Community College System (NCCCS) and the North Carolina Department of Correction (NCDOC). Because of the nature of the agreement between the community college system and the Department of Correction, corresponding administrators and staff from both departments at similar state and local levels were selected to be interviewed. Content analysis was performed by comparing and contrasting relevant data points and identifying emergent themes. These themes were then categorized into six categories.

Results and Recommendations

The results of this study have been grouped into six categories: (a) correctional education history, background, and establishment, (b) research and literature, (c) organizational structure, culture, and governance, (d) collaboration between leadership, (e) resources and operations, and (f) expectations, outcomes, assessment, and the future of correctional education for females. Recommendations for each category are based on the data collected and information from the literature review.

Correctional Education History, Background, and Establishment

There was no comprehensive written history on correctional education or specifically on correctional education for females. The participants did not have any information on correctional education history as a whole or specifically on female offenders. They did not know which individuals, organizations, or resources played key roles in the founding of correctional education in North Carolina or what obstacles were encountered in establishing the correctional education program at the correctional facility or college where this study was conducted. There was no formal documentation of the history.

A comprehensive history of correctional education including a section on female offender education might improve participants understanding of correctional education. It is important to recognize the process of how correctional education began and how the partnership between the community college system and the Department of Correction was formed. Not only will people who are directly involved be better informed, but also documentation of this history will help the general public understand correctional education.

State support was essential in overcoming barriers to correctional education. The participants agreed that the North Carolina government had made a strong commitment to post secondary correctional education. Legislation passed in 1987, specifically House Bill 50, was the key to forming the collaboration between the North Carolina Community College System and the Department of Corrections. Without this legislation, the participants recognized that the partnership would not have been formed. According to the vice president of the state level NCCCS, "If you didn't have this partnership, colleges wouldn't be offering free education to prisons because they would have no way to recoup any money." This study also showed that since 1987 there has been a continuation of laws passed which the participants felt helped improve correctional education.

A task force to lobby for correctional education may increase legislative support. Lobbying legislators will help to inform them about the issues surrounding correctional education. It would be important for the task force to collect the necessary data, such as program effectiveness, to educate the legislation on the benefits of correctional education. In addition, the task force might conduct a formal public awareness campaign on the benefits of correctional education. Bazos and Hausman (2003) found that one million dollars spent on correctional education prevented 640 crimes, while that same money invested in incarceration alone prevented 350.

Correctional Education Research and Literature

There is an inadequate amount of correctional education research and literature. According to Van Voorhis et al. (2001), there are very few validation studies involving women offenders. Researchers may need to be involved at all stages of development, relying on both process and outcome evaluations to improve program design and operations (Lawrence et al., 2002). This study confirms the lack of research utilized in correctional education, especially on female offender education. All of the participants in the study agreed that currently there was no research being conducted by the NCCCS or the DOC on female offenders.

The participants also confirmed that most correctional education research was focused on recidivism. One participant said "It is hard dealing with the public and the legislature when you cannot point to specific studies that say how well we are doing."

Enhanced correctional education may be accomplished by increasing research and production of literature. Research studies in the following areas are suggested: female offenders, gender-specific programming, descriptive studies, outcomes, best practices, employability and recidivism.

Organizational Structure, Culture and Leadership

There was no comprehensive organizational structure for correctional education. This study found there were inconsistencies of job titles and responsibilities among community college and Department of Correction staff. The community college staff was unsure of who really was responsible for prison education at the community college. Because positions are not mandated at all colleges, community college staff had varying responsibilities based on the size of the institution. According to the state educational consultant for the NCCCS, "there is some question sometimes about who is in charge. Where does the buck really stop"? In general, there was not a joint organizational structure showing the relationship between the two agencies. An item of concern was that community college instructors had two different supervisors, one at the community college and one at the correctional facility. Jensen's (2003) study addressed the challenge of working for two different supervisors in the correctional setting. Higher education staff was expected to adhere to all the rules and security procedures of the Department of Corrections and of the individual work facilities which resulted in educational staff being responsible to two supervisors. The local North Carolina Community College System basic skill coordinator stated:

 You're hired by the college, but in order to do your job for the
 college there has to be a certain relationship between you and the
 Department of Corrections. Each one of these organizations presents
 unique challenges that we must deal with. So I would say that as
 far as the administration is concerned, yes, definitely, I'm
 responsible for answering to two different administrations.

Developing a comprehensive organizational structure for the community college system and the Department of Correction defining the roles and responsibilities of community college instructors in the correctional facility would be beneficial. This structure should define the roles and responsibilities of each staff member and specify their immediate supervisor. Participants in this study felt that it was also important to assign one person at each level to be solely in charge of correctional education.

There was an inconsistency in the administration of policies and procedures. There were discrepancies between what the documents, such as the cooperative agreement and standard operating procedures, described and actual practices. The cooperative agreement stated the roles and responsibilities of the North Carolina Community College System and the Department of Correction, yet this study identified there was confusion among the participants about roles and responsibilities. There were standard operating procedures but these were not being met. The interpretation of policy and procedures also varied among levels.

Training all individuals in policy and procedures may improve consistency of administration. Also updating documents and manuals, making sure the participants are in compliance, and issuing a comprehensive manual may improve consistency of administration. The manual should include: (a) the history of correctional education from the community college side and the Department of Correction side, (b) important legislation including bills, general statutes, and codes, (c) important documents such as a cooperative agreement, joint feasibility forms, and joint approval forms, (d) joint organizational structure with defined roles and responsibilities, (e) policies and procedures from both the community college and the Department of Correction, and (f) any other essential information to the collaboration. This manual should be given to all personnel at the community college and the Department of Correction as well as distributed to new employees.

Community college instructors were not properly prepared to be correctional education instructors. The study found that there were no joint pre-service or in-service training on correctional education for instructors. In a prison, security of the inmate was a top priority and in some respects the faculty was a member of the security team. Faculty in this study were often unprepared for such responsibilities and the stress that they encountered in a prison environment and were susceptible to burnout.

A training and a mentoring program may properly prepare community college instructors to be correctional educators. Jensen (2003) stated that correctional and educational leaders must provide correctional training to higher education staff. The training should consist of a comprehensive multidisciplinary pre-service course as well an annual in-service course. There may be a need for a specific orientation and pre-service training detailed to community college instructors at correctional facilities. In addition, joint in-service training provided by the North Carolina Community College System and the Department of Correction and further professional development in adult education specifically for inmates may be needed. This study found that instructors were sometimes intimidated by correctional staff. Therefore training may incorporate information on instructor intimidation. It may also provide the instructors with an understanding of the prison environment and appropriate contact personnel. Instructors could be provided with a comprehensive manual with information from Department of Correction and community college system and a mentor to help them adjust to the prison environment.

Correctional education programs should reflect employment opportunities for inmates upon release. Participants felt that correctional educational programs should prepare inmates for employment upon release. Participants conveyed that inmates were often unprepared to join the workforce. A participant from the local NCCCS stated "It's well worth the cost if you are reducing the likelihood of that person to return to a correctional center once a person has been released. If you can cut down on repeat offenders, your money as been well spent." Programs need to be altered to better fit the needs of both the incarcerated offender and the business community (Merriam & Cunningham, 1989).

Conducting research on the employment of ex-offenders may help to ensure that correctional educational programs meet the employment needs of inmates upon release. A feasibility form developed by the North Carolina Community College System and the North Carolina Department of Correction was used to assess inmate employability in this study.

There was a lack of a joint mission, vision, goals, and objectives for the Department of Correction and the Community College System. According to Jensen (2003), when instructors do not receive support from correctional staff, then they do not feel they were an integral part of a common group. The responsibility of the correctional leader to maintain safety and security may conflict with the educational leader's responsibility to educate the inmate. This conflict may result in inconsistency and uncertainty. These barriers may impede lines of communication, which may inhibit implementation of correctional education programs. Correctional and educational leaders must collaborate and cooperate to successfully provide education to offenders (Spangenburg, 2004). This study found challenges to having shared values, beliefs, and practices, because the missions of the two agencies were greatly different. The mission of the North Carolina Community College System was educational integrity while the mission of Department of Correction was security. All participants agreed that there were no jointly defined mission, vision, goals, and objectives for correctional education between the two agencies and that female correctional education was not specifically addressed.

Establishment of overall correctional education mission, vision, goals, and objectives for the two agencies may bring organizational cohesion. This should include specifically addressing female correctional education. Communication, coordination, and collaborative problem solving may result in the educational and correctional leadership experiencing personal ownership of the vision, mission, and goals of the organization.

A classification system was beneficial in addressing the continuity of education as inmates transfer from one facility to another which often resulted in them not completing programs. According to Sharp (2003), there was a need for coordination and articulations among correctional facilities to ensure continuity of education as inmates transfer from one prison to another. The development of a matrix classification system, which identified educational programs offered in each of the prisons, helped to address inmate movement.

Continued use of the classification system to monitor inmate movement is recommended. The matrix classification system used by the North Carolina Community College System and the NC Department of Correction determines the appropriate level of courses that may be offered at a facility. It stipulates which types of programs may be offered based on the custody level and the inmate length-of-stay at each facility.

A mandatory education program addressed the needs of the inmates with the lowest levels of education. Studies show that imprisoned individuals are disproportionately and increasingly undereducated, with low skills in the basics of reading, writing, math and oral communication (Bloom et al., 2003; Hardyman & Van Voorhis, 2004; Lawrence et al., 2002; Spangenburg, 2004). North Carolina has several literacy laws requiring Department of Corrections to provide education for inmates with a low level of literacy. More emphasis has been placed on serving inmates with the low literacy levels because this group has the highest rate of recidivism (Spangenburg).

Efforts should be made to continue encouragement of legislation requiring mandatory education for inmates with low literacy levels. Currently, mandatory education requires inmates below a certain reading level to attend ABE/GED courses for 120 days.

North Carolina does not specifically focus on female correctional education. There was no evidence of gender-specific programming. The behaviors, risk factors, issues and concerns of women, and the differences in the behavior and needs of female and male offenders were not considered in program development and implementation, policies and operational practices. Most participants stated that no information about women offenders was collected, coded, monitored, or analyzed. They also indicated that there were no regional coordinated planning efforts in place to study the needs of female offenders and there was no research on female correctional education. All participants agreed that there was no specific funding for females, no one specifically assigned to lobby for women and women's programs, and no agency level positions to manage women's services.

Bloom et al. (2003) and Hardyman and Van Voorhis (2004) found that staff training traditionally ignored female offender issues. None of the levels of the North Carolina Community College System or the Department of Correction provided training on woman offenders. This study found no evidence of training to prepare staff for the importance of relationships in the lives of women offenders: on the nature of women's relational context, boundaries, limit setting, communication, and child-related issues; nor training on gender-specific programming. All the participants felt that this type of training would be beneficial to program effectiveness.

There was the opinion from the state level North Carolina Community College System and the Department of Correction that because the inmates were separated by gender into different facilities, then that would constitute gender-specific programming. One administrator stated that "The units are going to deal with the population they have. As far as gender-specific [programming] that would be handled by them [the inmates] being at a female facility versus a male facility". According to Bilchik and Peters (1998), merely isolating female offenders by gender was not the same as comprehensive gender-specific programming. All the administrators in the study agreed that there was no gender-specific programming. Some of the participants felt that it was important to provide the same educational opportunities regardless of gender.

Conducting research on female inmates may improve correctional education for females. According to Bilchik and Peters (1998), programming should be based on women's individual circumstances and needs. They also found that women who commit crimes have been an invisible minority whose needs, histories, and issues have gone largely undocumented. It was important to understand the population that was being served. Some of the administrators in this study felt that female inmates have special issues that are different from the issues surrounding the male inmate population.

Instructors were perceived as sole correctional education mentors. The community college instructors were perceived as mentors for their inmate students. The local NCCCS assistant basic skills coordinator/instructor stated that "as far as the educational staff is concerned a lot of times we're looked upon as mentors in that you counsel students from time to time." While correctional education students have little opportunity or capacity for becoming peers with their mentors, those who participate in higher education do become more self-reliant, autonomous, and independent as students (Lawrence, 1994).

Providing training to instructors on mentorship may improve the mentor--protege relationship between the instructor and inmate. According to Lawrence (1994), the theory and goals of correctional education and of mentorship seem quite compatible, and correctional educators are encouraged to think of themselves as mentors in the traditional sense of the term. With the proper training, instructors may play an essential role in the inmates' successful reintegration into society. The instructor will be able to provide guidance that is crucial to forming positive, constructive lifestyles on the outside.

Collaboration between the North Carolina Community College System and the Department of Corrections

Collaboration between agencies was important to the success of correctional education. The collaboration between the North Carolina Community College System and the Department of Correction had improved correctional education. The participants stated the community college program was much better than the previous system which utilized Department of Correction instructors to teach correctional education.

The development of collaborations between correctional and educational agencies may be beneficial to the success of correctional education. According to the state Department of Correction's director of educational services, "The United States Department of Education was planning a visit to North Carolina, to explore the relationship between the North Carolina Community College System and the Department of Correction so they can use us as a model for other states." The development of cooperative agreements was essential to the success of correctional education. Amtmann and Evans (2001) and Jensen (2003) found formal contractual agreements between correctional and educational institutions were seriously needed. In this case, although there was not a formal agreement, there was a cooperative agreement developed by a joint committee, which specified the roles and responsibilities of the two agencies.

However, the education consultant of the state NCCCS reported that "It's probably likely that the majority, if not up to 99% of the folks that are teaching [in prisons] don't even know there is a cooperative agreement." Cooperative agreements were needed to establish an understanding of the responsibilities of the two agencies collaborating to provide correctional education. The agreement should address: (a) a definition of correctional education, (b) the joint application and approval process, (c) roles and responsibilities, (d) inmate assignment and referrals, (e) data reporting, and (f) funding.

There was a lack of communication between agencies. The North Carolina Community College System and the Department of Correction had communication difficulties as evident by general misinformation or the lack of information through the organizations. The participants at all levels were not knowledgeable about how the collaboration was formed and the local level participants lacked knowledge about the interagency committee. The staff at the community college did not know that they were the contact person for correctional education. The participants at both the community college and department of correction experienced problems with the interpretation of policies and practices and were confused about funding issues.

The improvement of communication processes may be beneficial to the collaboration among agencies. Communication might be improved by reviewing the organizational structures and determining the lines of communication, and allowing input from members of both organizations.

The joint committee/task force that oversaw the collaboration among agencies improved the success of correctional education working. Coranth (1986) noted the occurrence of interpersonal and interagency conflicts at all levels, usually because of overlapping or disputed lines of responsibility. In response, Coranth recommended that an oversight agency be established to provide statewide coordination and establish overarching policies. This study found both agencies agreed that the joint committee, the Interagency Committee on Correctional Education, allowed them to formally examine the correctional education.

Continuation of the joint oversight committee may improve coordination of correctional education. The Interagency Committee on Correctional Education has representatives from both the Department of Correction and the North Carolina Community College System office. The group periodically reviews course offerings in the prisons and discusses any barriers that may have existed, whether from the community college's perspective or the Department of Correction. The committee also stated that they discussed joint-legislative initiatives. The joint oversight committee was a communication method where the agencies formally met to examine correctional education.

Resources and Operations

There was a considerable gap between programming needs and resources. Lawrence et al. (2002) found in an era of prison expansion and constraints on prison budgets, allocating space and resources for correctional education was not a top priority for correction managers. Such factors directly affect programming and are among those most commonly cited by correctional officials as barriers to effective programming. This study's findings agreed with Lawrence et al. There was a great need for improved physical facilities and technological resources. The major concerns with technology were the need to update equipment, continuing problems with inmates having access to the Internet, and simulating technology that will help inmates function when they are released from prison.

Administrators may need to request funds for resources to meet programming needs and participate in grant writing. During periods of budget constraints, correctional education administrators need to be able to prove the effectiveness of correctional education in order to secure funding.

Expectations, Outcomes, Assessment and the Future

There was not a comprehensive evaluation of correctional education programs. Lawrence et al. (2002) found there was a need for systematic assessment in correctional education and a need to express theoretical foundations for anticipated impacts of programs and this study concurred. The participants wanted a comprehensive evaluation on each inmate including demographic information and interests. The participants also wanted data pertaining to inmate release and employability after release. The participants thought that it was important to document the effectiveness of the correctional education programs.

The development and use of evaluation instruments may help to improve correctional education programs. Establishing benchmarks and collecting data on inmates and correctional education activities may help in program development.

Program design did not include the analysis of inmate backgrounds and needs or feedback from inmates. One participant stated: I think a lot of times we may miss out when we don't ask the inmates or the students what they feel is necessary. I think it's easier to make decisions without having their input, but I think their input is needed and is necessary I think more could be done to include them.

Assessment of inmate needs and inmate feedback when designing programs may improve programming for inmates. In developing and implementing correctional education, Bilchik and Peters (1998), Bloom et al. (2003), and Sharp (2003) found that inmates should be involved in the process. Programs may be shaped to include inmates' broader problems.

Conclusion

As with most organizations, communications is crucial. Communication needs to be open between agencies and all levels of administration. When forming collaborations, it is crucial to have cooperative agreements that define what each organization's roles and responsibilities will be within the collaboration. Joint oversight committees are necessary in order to have input from both sides of the collaboration when designing, establishing, administrating and governing correctional educational programs.

An organizational structure that defines the roles and responsibilities of all the participants in correctional education and the development of a joint mission, vision, goals and objectives will bring about organizational synergy. Finally, research in the areas of inmate background, needs and employability after release; technology; evaluation and outcomes; and best practices may improve success of correctional educational programs. Training on the unique characteristics of inmates, policy and procedures, and mentorship should also lend itself to success.

References

Amtmann, J., & Evans, R. (2001). Decision-making processes of correctional and educational leaders. Corrections Compendium, 26(12), 1-11.

Bazos, A., & Hausman, J. (2003). Correctional education as a crime control program. UCLA School of Public Policy and Social Research.

Belknap, J., & Holsinger, K. (1998). An overview of delinquent girls: How theory and practice have failed and the need for innovative changes. In R. Zaplin (Ed.), Female crime and delinquency: Critical perspectives and effective interventions. Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen.

Bilchik, S., & Peters, S. (1998). Guiding principles for promising female programming. Retrieved February 10, 2005, from http://www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org/pubs/principles/contents.html Bloom, B., Owen, B., Covington, S., & Raeder, J. (2003). Gender-responsive strategies research, practice, and guiding principles for women offenders. Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections.

Bouchard, J. (2001). We don't have to like each other, we just have to work together: The corrections professionals' guide to improving facility operations. Horsham, PA: LRP Burke, M., & Keeley, J. (2002). Collaboration between the school house and the bunk house. The Journal of Correctional Education, 53(2), 70-73.

Fox, T. (1987, May). Teaching in prisons: Consideration of the concept of adult education. Change: Implications for adult learning. Conference conducted at the University of Manitoba, Regina.

Gehring, T. (n.d.). The history of correctional education. Retrieved on February 14, 2005, from http://www.ceanational.org/history.htm

Grasty, R. (1988). An exploratory study of agreements between institutions of higher education and correctional institutions. Ann Arbor: (UMI No.).

Hardyman, P., & Van Voorhis, P. (2004). Developing gender-specific classification systems for women offenders. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Harrison, P., & Beck, A. (2002). Prisoners in 2001. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Statistics.

Jensen, J. (2003). The quest for collaboration and cooperation: Communication is the most demanding adjustment between contract education providers and department of corrections staff in achieving a joint perspective of service coordination. The Journal of Correctional Education, 54(3), 98-03.

Jordan, B., Schlenger, W., Fairbank, J., & Cadell, J. (1996). Prevalence of psychiatric disorders among incarcerated women. Archives of General Psychiatry, 53(6), 513-519.

Jurich, S., Casper, M., & Hull, K. (2001). Training correctional personnel: A needs assessment study. The Journal of Correctional Education, 52(1), 23-27.

Kerka, S. (1995). Prison literacy programs (ERIC Digest No. 159). Columbus, Ohio. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED346082) Lawrence, D. (1994). Inmate students: Where do they fit in? Journal of Oklahoma Criminal Justice Research Consortium, 1, 43-51.

Lawrence, S., Mears, D., Dubin, G., & Travis, J. (2002). The practice and promise of prison programming. (Research Report). Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

Mageehon, A. (2003). Incarcerated women's educational experiences. The Journal of Correctional Education, 54(4), 191-199.

Merriam, S., & Cunningham, P. (1989). Handbook of adult and continuing education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Morash, M., & Bynum, T. (1999). The mental health supplement to the national study of innovative and promising programs for women offenders. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, p. 33.

Owen, B. (1998). In the mix: Struggle and survival in a women's prison. Albany: State University of New York.

Sharp, S. (2003). The incarcerated woman. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

Spangenburg, G. (2004) Current issues in correctional education. New York: Council for Advancement of Adult Literacy.

Steurer, S., Smith, L., & Tracy, A. (2001). Three-state recidivism study. (Research Report). Lanham, MA: Correctional Education Association.

Van Voorhis, P., Peiler, J., Presser, L., Spiropoulis, G., & Sutherland, J. (2001). Classification of women offenders: A national assessment of current practices and the experiences of three states. Cincinnati, OH: The Center for Criminal Justice Research.

Biographical Sketches--

JOHNICA ELLIS, Ed.D., is an instructor at Edgecombe Community College and has eleven years of experience teaching female offenders in the North Carolina correctional system. Her research interests include correctional education, professional development, and program evaluation.

CHERYL MCFADDEN, Ed.D., is an associate professor in the Department of Educational Leadership at East Carolina University. Her research interests include program evaluation, curriculum development, and leadership induction.

SUSAN COLARIC, Ph.D., is the Director of Instructional Technology at St. Leo University. Her research interests include professional development and alternative delivery methods for non-traditional populations.