how i do love this story! an essay in the sunday new york times profiles a program where convicted criminals are granted probation in exchange for full participation in six twice-monthly seminars on literature. the offenders, along with judges, probation officers, an english professor, and a graduate student discuss fiction, memoirs, and poems, finding universal questions and important life lessons in the pages of the books they are assigned.
the program, changing lives through literature, is now in nine states and boasts a recidivism rate of less than 20 percent. the website offers advice on how to start your own program, texts to use, even lesson plans. i really like the fact that judges and probation officers read the books, attend the meetings, and join the conversation. in some ways this program reminds of inside-out, where we take our classes into prisons and university students and inmates share perspectives and learn the material of a college course together. it’s an amazing experience and really speaks to the transformative power of education and open minds.
i’m working on building literacy programs for adult men and their children at the oregon state penitentiary, and for young women in oregon’s primary juvenile correctional facility for girls. i’ve applied for grants and been promised funding from different sources to get the projects rolling, but have felt stymied in my struggles to fight through the bureaucracy and the inertia and get buy-in from potential participants.
the essay in the times reminds me that it’s worth it. words have power. stories have power. shared experiences bring very different people together. it’s worth the effort to bring literature into the lives of offenders. it may even open whole new worlds for them.
Comments 6
cltl — March 1, 2009
Hi Michelle,
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.
slamdunk — March 2, 2009
Great topic Michelle. I was not aware of this program. I am happy to see alternatives to sentencing and like this innovative approach--especially the professional facilitation and participation.
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.
cltl — March 2, 2009
Hello again! If you'd like more information about the different formal and informal studies we've done on our program, check out our "results and studies" page -- http://cltl.umassd.edu/ProgramsResults.cfm
slamdunk — March 3, 2009
Thanks Cltl.
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.
Michelle Inderbitzin — March 3, 2009
cltl and slamdunk,
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.
Allen — June 30, 2021
Graduate student discuss fiction, memoirs, and poems, finding universal questions and important life lessons in the pages of the books they are assigned. AZ-900