The Antidote to Recidivism

Imagine if someone somewhere was discovering the cure for cancer right this very second. Imagine how this discovery would transform the world as we know it. We would know the precise steps to take to ensure no one ever died from cancer again.

Now imagine that people ignored this cure for some odd reason, and cancer was allowed to flourish, devastating the lives of millions of people. That would be crazy, right? It would be absurd. Why would anyone ignore science and allow people to suffer and die?

Such absurdity is happening within our criminal justice system. For years now, we have had data at our disposal that conclusively proves that those prisoners who take meaningful college classes in prison re-offend at a much lower rate relative to other prisoners.

It's as if we have found the magic bullet for preventing recidivism, yet such programs are not rolled out nationwide. And everyone still acts confused about how to reduce recidivism. But they are willfully ignoring the overwhelming data that prisoners who engage in these kinds of rigorous programs have a dramatically lower recidivism rate than the prison population as a whole. 

Math Doesn't Lie

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) report on recidivism rates, 7 in 10 incarcerated people released in 34 states in 2012 were rearrested within five years. In fact, the report highlights that the United States has some of the highest recidivism rates in the entire world.

The findings are bleak and point to a glaring problem in this country. But it doesn't explain the WHY behind this problem. Why do so many former prisoners re-offend and find themselves back behind bars? Is it just that some people prefer a life of crime? Do they prefer having their freedoms stripped from them and being away from their loved ones rotting behind bars? Obviously not.

The answer to why is answered by the Prison Policy Initiative, which has repeatedly found there are systemic barriers that impede incarcerated people from successful re-entry, namely difficulty finding a job, and subsequently, finding affordable housing.

And this is precisely the reason why college in-prison programs have been found to reduce recidivism significantly.

The Largest and Most Rigorous Study to Date

A study conducted by researchers at Yale University and Bard Prison Initiative (BPI) found a dramatic reduction in recidivism rates across racial groups among those who participated in BPI's college program. It also found that participants with higher levels of participation had the lowest rates of recidivism. 

"Incarceration is bound with systems of poverty and a lack of access to opportunity, especially education and socioeconomic mobility," Matthew G.T. Denney, a Ph.D. student at Yale University and co-author of the study, has stated. "Participation and intensity of engagement in programs like BPI might disrupt these cycles."

BPI has offered college courses to inmates since 1999 and operates within six New York State correctional facilities. Their rigorous programs have so far helped to reduce recidivism rates by 38%, with even greater levels among those inmates who participate at even higher levels.

Today, BPI enrolls over 300 students into their courses and hosts extracurricular activities to give their students a sense of curiosity and discovery. They offer more than 160 college courses each academic year and have handed out 550 degrees so far. 

Perhaps even more impressive is BPI's small debate team, which has gone up against some of the best colleges in the world… and WON! BPI's debate team has beaten the likes of Cambridge, The University of Pennsylvania, and yes, even Harvard, debating issues such as undocumented immigration, the desirability of high-speed rail, and abolishing the electoral college. 

So far, the only teams to ever beat the BPI debate team, which currently has a 10-2 record, are Brown University and West Point. And the BPI team won three subsequent re-matches with West Point!

The work BPI is doing is absolutely astounding. Their students are not typically low-level offenders. These inmates have committed serious crimes and are serving long sentences. Under normal circumstances, most of BPI’s students would find themselves back behind bars within a few years. But thanks to BPI’s educational opportunities, 97.5% of their students never go back to prison.

Did you read that? I said 97.5 % of their students never go back to prison. Let that sink in.

These are prisoners who are serving time at a maximum-security prison. In a system wherein 7 out of 10 prisoners go out and commit more crimes, how can the efficacy of such programs be ignored? There are about 2 million people behind bars in the United States. That means 1.4 million will commit more crimes upon release. Imagine if instead of 7 out of 10 prisoners re-offended, only 1 out of 10 re-offended. Only 200,000 would re-offend. That's 1.2 million fewer people committing more crimes, and over a decade or two, that really adds up. The good that such an effective justice system would bring society would be incalculable. How does that affect the children and spouses of the people who would have re-offended and have been therefore tossed back in a cage for many years or decades? How does it affect the children, spouses, and families of the offender's victims? Over time, this adds up to millions of kids having a mom or dad who is taking care of them and working rather than being stuck in prison—again. The human toll that is avoided is too significant to ignore.

Let's return to the debate team of prisoners. Now, the three debaters who "outsmarted the Ivy Leaguers have a new round of accomplishments. Two have found professional footing after release. The third, still in prison, has earned a master's degree and wants to work in public health someday."

"They say they always will feel bonded to their debate team at the Bard Prison Initiative, which offers free college to incarcerated men and women. They aim to prove the power of rigorous education to turn lives around."

Take this opportunity away from these guys, and they are just numbers who live in a violent and inherently inhumane world (a maximum-security prison), leaving them full of bitterness and rage. Put differently, in the absence of such programs, they are being warehoused in a very hostile and violent warehouse, a maximum-security prison.

If you don't know what life is like in a maximum-security prison, just think about the movie Shawshank Redemption. It's not an environment that is conducive to rehabilitation. But with such programs, prisoners not only acquire practical knowledge that will help them on the outside, but they gain myriad intangibles that are invaluable in that the learning process transforms their minds, changes their perspective, and unlocks parts of them that they didn't know existed. The value of the intangibles gleaned cannot be overstated. More to the point, prisoners' eyes were opened because of the learning process and a sense of purpose and achievement. It changed how they saw themselves and how they saw opportunities. Instead of thinking, “I'm a no-good felon who won't even be able to get a job a McDonald's when I am released,” they are thinking, “I can't wait to get out. The possibilities are endless. I can do anything I put my mind to. I can own a chain of McDonald's.” 

The power of a mindset is something that ought not to be discounted.

The progress Bard has made is slowly gaining attention. Recently their story was made into an Emmy-nominated Netflix Documentary called College Behind Bars.

The Question of Fairness

Some have objected to programs like BPI. They ask, "Why should people who did bad things get a free education when there are so many law-abiding citizens who can't afford to go to college?"

It's a natural question, and yet it is very short-sighted. The reality is that college programs for prisoners help save taxpayer money. According to The Wall Street Journal, "The average annual cost for each person in a New York prison is $69,000, by state data, and . . . The Bard Prison Initiative says its college program costs about $9,000 for each student yearly." So, these programs save taxpayers money which can then expand college access for all state residents.

Correctional education has also been found to be twice as cost-effective as incarceration. According to a study by the Department of Policy Studies at the University of California at Los Angeles, a $1 million investment in incarceration will prevent about 350 crimes. In contrast, that same investment in [correctional] education will prevent more than 600 crimes. Correctional education also leads to greater societal productivity, increased tax revenue, and a decreased reliance on governmental support. 

And it's not like the prisoners are being spoiled and pampered. We aren't talking about building them tennis courts and feeding them steak. This allows them to invest their time to grow and change so that they are poised to reintegrate back into society and stay out. Why should prisoners get to spend their time working their butts off in rigorous educational programs? Why not? It's not about being soft on crime; it's about being smart on crime—and the empirical evidence collected over decades of the lock-‘em-up-and-throw-away-the-key approach show incontrovertibly that the current paradigm is broken. It simply does not work—that is, it does not work if the goal truly is to use prison to rehabilitate offenders so they don't go out and re-offend. If, however, the goal is to warehouse those "evil" prisoners and try to inflict as much emotional pain and mental anguish as possible and to tear them down so much that they will emerge bitter men and women with no self-worth and a broken spirit who left prison much worse than when they entered so that they believe their only option is to return to a life of crime, then the system is highly effective and efficient—no need to change a thing.

Let's give them pickaxes and have them break rocks 15 hours a day in extreme temperatures, feed them slop, house them in solitary confinement, and so on. That will teach those "criminals" to stop committing crimes. 

So if the point of prison is purely punitive rather than corrective and nobody cares about actually using incarceration to fix the problem, then, no, high-quality educational programs should not be offered. 

But what happens when it's your mom, dad, brother, sister, son, daughter or best friend from college who gets caught in the justice system?

The truth is, most people in prison are not ruthless mass-murdering drug lords, rapists, or murderers. Most are people with redeemable traits who have made a mistake or have made many mistakes based on a destructive pattern of living, usually fueled by a warped mindset.

But if one can change one's mindset, thinking and perspective, then one can change one's behavior; and if one can change one's behavior, then one has changed the course of one's life. As the evidence proves, rigorous educational programs are the antidote for recidivism.

Using Technology to Educate Prisoners

The problem with providing prisoners with high-quality educational programs is the effort has always been met with the practical realities of prison life. An army of teachers is needed, classroom space, time, and on and on. Prisons are run on a schedule, and there are limited hours in the day for classes. Prisons are routinely on lockdown for extended periods. 

And money. It takes a lot of money to fuel such a massive endeavor, and altough smaller programs exists, as was highlighted above, there aren't many of them—it simply doesn't scale. 

But if prisoners could be given tablets, preloaded with a curriculum, they could watch the professors teach the class. They could use study guides built into the tablet and much more. This would be centralized learning. There's no need for an army of teachers to go into prisons; from a tablet, two million prisoners could watch one professor teaching a class. Similarly, there's no need for books and classroom space; prisoners from their cells could turn on their tablet and learn morning, noon, or night.

And instead of limited classes, prisoners could earn various degrees, even advanced degrees. Beyond college courses, the tablets could be preloaded with many blue-collar courses that allow prisoners to become certified in different trades. 

So, if providing prisoners with high-quality college courses has proven to be extremely effective in putting a massive dent in recidivism, but given the inherent constraints of prison life, the effort does not scale, then the solution is to provide tablets, which remove the barriers. Problem solved. People in third-world countries have access to education because of tablets. Technology is beautiful, and technology puts a high-quality education at prisoners' fingertips.

I also want to differentiate between low-quality classes and high-quality classes, a crucial distinction that yields entirely different results.

To that end, I'm in federal prison, and have taken a list of classes so long that I cannot even begin to name all of them here. On paper, it looks great. But the quality of those classes is low, and the learning is superficial. My point is there is a substantive difference between classes and high-quality, rigorous programs. So yes, it's true that prisons do offer some classes, but, in my opinion, although the classes may look great on paper, they lack substance.

I'll leave it at that. My real learning comes from self-study. I take the classes offered by the prison because I have to. I love learning. It's the center of my universe. It's almost a compulsion. I carve out time each day to study different subjects. I love it. I just want to invest that time prudently so I get the best return on my time.

Regarding the Bard Prison Initiative, Bard College has also created its Consortium for the Liberal Arts in Prison. Through this initiative, BPI has collaborated with other colleges and universities around the country to launch additional college-in-prison programs. Leading institutions now have the tools at their disposal to redefine boundaries of success and challenge expectations of inclusive excellence. They have paved the way, and in doing so, have discovered the antidote for recidivism. 

Technology is a game changer. It would allow all prisoners to have a high-quality education at their fingertips. But will the federal and state governments actually use the opportunity to cure recidivism.

Or, as in our cancer scenario at the beginning of this article, will they keep their head in the sand, ignore the hard data, and allow people to suffer, all while wondering "how we can reduce the rates of recidivism in this country?"