Recidivism and Open Learning Education (ROLE) Project

Executive Summary
1. Program Implementation
2. Research Question 1
3. Research Question 2
Recommendations

Prepared by Dr P. Kinnear
Australian Institute of Criminology

on behalf of the
Commonwealth Department of
Education, Training and Youth Affairs

March 2000

This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced by any process without permission from AusInfo. Requests and inquiries concerning reproduction and rights should be addressed to the Manager, Legislative Services, AusInfo, GPO Box 84, Canberra ACT 2601.

The views expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect the views of the Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs.

This study was funded by the Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs (DETYA) and responds to recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody regarding the educational and training needs of Indigenous offenders. The study was commissioned to investigate the benefits of providing open learning style education – a program of flexible, self-paced learning – for Indigenous offenders in correctional institutions and to assess the impact upon repeat offending.

After an initial series of consultations, a program of literacy and numeracy education through art was developed and offered in five South Australian Correctional Institutions over a 12 month period beginning in July 1997 and ending in July 1998 with a minimum six month recidivism follow-up period post-implementation.

The study sought to provide answers to two research questions:

This report presents the findings and key recommendations in relation to these two questions as well as presenting a detailed process evaluation of the program implementation. This is necessary because the program experienced numerous difficulties in implementation which impacted substantially upon the ultimate outcomes.

Findings are presented in relation to the implementation phase and in answer to the two research questions.

Top

1. Program Implementation

A number of administrative and substantive difficulties were encountered during program implementation which limited the overall success of the program and the power of the data to answer the research questions. Some of these problems were also due to the fact that the program was a pilot program, separate from the mainstream prison education system.

Key findings

• Existing courseware available from Open Learning Australia (OLA) was unsuitable for the low educational levels of the potential cohort or style of educational opportunities available in the prison context.
• Most Indigenous prisoners require literacy and numeracy education, however, consultations revealed that a straight literacy and numeracy program would not generate or sustain the interest of Indigenous prisoners. Instead, literacy and numeracy components should be structured around a theme of interest to the participants – in this case, around the theme of art.
• This change required a substantial modification of what might conventionally be understood as an open learning style of education.
• Prisoners who elected to participate in the course possessed characteristics that are associated with high risk of recidivism.

Other Findings

• Many course participants indicated that they enjoyed the program and found it to be beneficial.
• Program goals of overcoming problems of continuity on transfer or release were not achieved, due partly to inadequate mechanisms for ensuring continuity, and also to the prisoners’ difficulties of continuing with the program in the face of more pressing priorities in the immediate post-release period.

Any future implementation of this or similar programs would presumably operate in the context of the existing prison education system. Nevertheless, in introducing a new program, attention must be paid to careful negotiation with correctional administrations in order to facilitate flexible delivery with a minimum of disruption to prison security and administrative regimes.

Top

2. Research Question 1

Because the program which was offered was a modified version of open learning, the question of the feasibility of open learning style of education must be answered in two parts:

1. whether it is feasible to deliver mainstream open learning style education to Indigenous offenders in correctional institutions; and
2. whether it is feasible to deliver the modified open learning program developed by the ROLE project.

Key Findings

• It is not feasible to deliver mainstream open learning style education to the majority of Indigenous prisoners simply because the majority of Indigenous prisoners do not possess the skills required to undertake a course which relies upon independent learning.
• This finding in no way implies that open learning approaches are not suitable for the smaller number of Indigenous prisoners who are, in fact, capable of undertaking such courses, indeed, for such people, the flexibility which distance education provides may be of considerable worth.
• The modified ‘open learning style’ adopted by the ROLE project was an unsuccessful compromise between flexible delivery and tutor-oriented delivery, with some substantial areas of mutual incompatibility between these two objectives.
• Overall, the curriculum was of a good standard and was culturally appropriate, although some modification is required. Such modification would involve an expansion of skill levels and a review of the pedagogical foundations in relation to literacy and numeracy education as well as Indigenous education.
• Only a small percentage of those enrolled in ROLE participated in the program to the extent of completing course elements. Six received a Certificate in General Education for Adults (CGEA), 17 individuals received a total of ninety statements of attainment and 9 received an academic transcript for work completed.

Other Findings

• Participants appreciated some aspects of the flexibility of the program – especially the ability to undertake some of the work in their cells during lock down times and the benefits of non-compulsory attendance.
• Some secondary outcomes were observed in the form of the achievement of personal goals or self-development such as:
• reinforcement of Aboriginality and identity;
• increased confidence in pursuing education;
• more positive prison experience due to the constructive use of prison time and distraction from personal and other worries; and
• increased self-esteem and the production of impressive artworks.

Top

3. Research Question 2

The project’s ability to find conclusive results in recidivism outcomes for program participants was significantly inhibited by the difficulties encountered during implementation that necessitated significant alterations to the research design.

Key Findings

Participation in the ROLE project may have had a positive influence upon recidivism rates. An initial differential in rates of return to prison between participants and non-participants shows that the study group were less than half as likely to be readmitted than the control group. This result remained after controlling for background variables. Caution is recommended in the interpretation of the results of the study due to the small sample size and lack of other potentially important data.

Top

Recommendations

On the basis of these findings, the following recommendations are made:

Recommendation No 1:

That the Indigenous Education Branch of the Commonwealth Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs (DETYA) undertake to have the curriculum materials reviewed by a committee of literacy/ numeracy and art education experts, Indigenous education specialists and prison education specialists, and modified along the lines suggested in this report

and

That subsequent to this review State correctional authorities be made aware of the materials and encouraged to incorporate them into existing Indigenous education programs.

Recommendation No. 2:

Any future implementation of the ROLE program, must:

• integrate the program into the existing range of courses available through the prison education system;
• carefully negotiate with correctional administrations to minimise conflict with prison security and administrative regimes;
• employ a coordinator to monitor and ensure access to materials;
• employ tutors who are either Indigenous people with some educational background or non-Indigenous people with substantial expertise and experience in Indigenous education;
• be delivered locally and flexibly, but oversighted centrally;
• ensure clear structures, processes and support mechanisms are in place for students who wish to continue the program upon release.

These points should be incorporated as an integral part of the educational package.

Recommendation No. 3:

That Open Learning Australia develop and deliver courses which are culturally appropriate to the minority of Indigenous prisoners who are capable of undertaking such courses. Considerable consultation with existing providers of distance post-secondary education to Indigenous people should be an integral part of this process.

Recommendation No. 4:

That the ROLE materials be reviewed. The review recommended in Recommendation 1 should be guided by the following principles:

• the program should abandon the requirement of independent learning and provide adequate support for effective literacy and numeracy education;
• the program should incorporate options for flexible delivery which do not compromise the integrity of the educational objectives;
• the materials should be modified to expand skill levels; and
• that modifications should include a review in the light of current knowledge and theory about literacy acquisition for Indigenous learners.

Recommendation No. 5

Any future implementation of the ROLE materials should contain an evaluation component which includes:

• an assessment of primary and secondary educational outcomes using appropriate measurement methods;
• collection of data on a range of demographic variables (especially educational variables) and background variables (e.g. substance abuse history, post-release experiences, family support etc.); and
• a large enough sample size to ensure statistically valid results.

The evaluation should be conducted in conjunction with researchers experienced in the field of educational evaluation as well as recidivism evaluation.