thank you both for your comments. this conversation is really interesting — and useful — to me personally. as i wrote in the post, i think the ‘changing lives through literature’ program is similar in some ways to the ‘inside-out prison exchange program’ that i have been teaching in for more than 2 years. we share some of the same issues: our inmate students are unusually motivated (in the best possible way) and carefully screened, so they are a select and non-representative population; nevertheless, there is close to unanimous agreement from participants that the program is extremely positive and, in some cases, life-altering. the testimonials from students are amazing, but still mostly anecdotal.

i’m on the national research committee for the inside-out program and we are currently strategizing how to best measure its impacts. each class has a relatively small number of participants but the program (and its number of graduates) is growing rapidly.

again, thanks to you both for the comments. i’m not only learning about another innovative — and i think very promising — program, slamdunk your points are helping me think through my own projects.

cltl, i’m looking forward to reading your post tomorrow.

After reading through the studies, here are comments from my perspective:

1) Combining Bibliotherapy..–This is the kind of quantitative study that I would want to see of the program. Unfortunately, the n=32 and that is as low as one can get in gleaning useful (yet questionable) information through a quantitative approach. Also, the data used is now 18 years old and there has evidently been no replication of the results.

2) New Bedford…–There is no information on the comparison group listed so I can’t assume that random assignment and/or other methods were used to fairly evaluate the experimental and other group. As I said previously, it can be argued (without empirical evidence) that this type of program attracts defendants who are less apt to reoffend anyway.

3) An Evaluation…–This is a qualitative study simply measuring opinions about the program and would not be persuasive as to reducing recidivism as a quant study.

4) A Study of Four Series…–The table does not provide enough information about the study to determine its validity or not. The n=36 is again very small, but the numbers are recent 2001-2003.

5) Lynn-Lowell–I am unable to get the link to work.

I am not being critical of the program–I see it as innovative.

In contrast, if I represented a funding source, I would want to see empirical evidence that such an initiative reduces recidivism before I invest in it.

In reviewing the information, it would be helpful for CLTL to bolster its claim that the initiative lowers recidivism rates. The 18.7% reduction that is repeatedly cited (looks like from one study conducted in the 1990s) seems high and makes me wonder if participants in the program represent defendants who were “cherry picked” or those who were and are better educated and less likely to reoffend anyway.

Good skill with your literacy funding.

Thanks for sharing this story with your readers. I encourage anyone interested in CLTL to check out the official website at the link you mention in your write up and also have a gander at our blog ( http://cltlblog.wordpress.com ). We will be posting our response to the Leah Price article on Wednesday and hope you will stop in to see us weigh in on the article then.