Corrections_Today_September-October_2022_Vol.84_No.5

Harte et al. (2015) wrote about the suppressive nature of prisons; in particular, the inactive environment and the fact that the brain has little to think about and few choices to make. They posited those characteristics inhibit brain function and minimize the use and development of executive functions, defined as critical thinking, working memory, self-regulation, impulse control, attention, etc. Further, they reviewed studies which demonstrated many prison inmates have diminished executive functions. Conclusions indicated the environment in prisons may further diminish executive functions, thereby decreas ing inmates’ ability to think critically and make better choices. As a result, prison environments may contribute to an increased likelihood of recidivism upon release. Education and other enriching activities, such as physical activity, may improve executive functions by stimulat ing the parts of the brain responsible for them, thereby improving the skills needed to be successful upon release from prison (Banich et al, 2013). Additionally, participa tion in education programs within prisons can help reduce the misbehavior of inmates because their minds are engaged in fruitful activities (Reese, 2017). Courtney’s (2019) study found a statistically significant improvement in inmate conduct among those who participated in high school equivalency programs. The typical response to the atmosphere of education in prisons is a positive experience for most inmates who participate. Unlike in public schools, educators meet incarcerated learners at their present, individual academic level (Reese, 2017). This enables them to take advantage of educational opportunities in ways they were unable to in grade school. Kallman (2020) did a study to determine how the setting of a prison affects classroom dynamics and academic achievement. She found the oppressive nature of the prison environment offered unexpected and unique opportunities for those involved in carceral education. She lauded the supportive educators who work in prisons and suggested the positive support helped students connect to their learning. Further, students were able to learn more about the world as they realized the magnitude of available knowledge from their confinement in prison. Students also experienced increases in toler ance and communication skills as a result of collaborative learning, which are highly beneficial skills when living in proximity with others during incarceration. These skills improved offenders’ abilities to better manage their

incarceration in positive ways. Inmates who participate in education programs often have fewer prison infractions and lower recidivism rates (Austin, 2017). Austin (2017) wrote that participation in prison education programs counteract the depressing and oppressive experience of incarceration. The typical response to the atmosphere of education in prisons is a positive experience for most inmates who participate. Latessa & Reitler (2014, as cited in Renbarger et al., 2019) posited prison education programs are the most effective intervention to reduce recidivism. They suggest this is because prison education programs include behav ioral interventions that emphasize action-oriented results. A study of 6,561 inmates five years after release from the Indiana Department of Corrections analyzed recidivism and employment rates (Lockwood et al., 2012). The most important factors correlated with recidivism in this study were education and employment. Predictably, the lower the education level and the younger the offenders, the more likely they were to reoffend. Conversely, those of fenders with a college education had a significantly lower recidivism rate (31% compared to 55.9% for those with less than a high school education). Recidivism for 4-year college graduates is minimal, according to Vacca (2004). Ellison et al. (2017) found in their meta-analysis that released offenders are most likely to maintain success and remain in the community in relationship to their participa tion in higher levels of educational programs in prison. Similarly, Gerber and Fritsch (1995) conducted a study that highlighted the positive benefits of vocational and academic education in prisons (Reese, 2019). Their study found employment choices increased and recidivism rates decreased when offenders participated in their educational programs. Further, inmate misbehavior was reduced for those participating students (Reese, 2019). In further support of these claims, Bozick et al. (2014) documented

Corrections Today September/October 2022— 33