due 3/17/18 @ 10 pm AllRoundBest Tutor

The Joumai of Correctional Education 57(4) • December 2006

Correctional Education: Why it is Only "Promising"

John Lewis

Abstract

Althougii many correctional education studies have identified various treatment

programs as being effective for reducing recidivism, few, if any, of these studies appear

to be above reproach when assessing their methodological vigor. This paper highlights

the shortcomings in the cunent post-treatment quasi-experimental design primarily

used to evaluate the effectiveness of various correctional education and vocational

training programs. It is argued that this research design is inadequate to offer a true

assessment of the impact of conectional education, especially if the outcome variable is

recidivism, since numerous plausibie variables that could impact program

impiementation, deiivery, and retention, as well as post-release variabies are missing

from the model This survivai analysis model, which evaluates oniy macro-ievel

variables, often discounts aiternative factors which might have caused a CE effect to

have been dampened, thus in most of the studies, evidence that CE works to reduce

recidivism is ambiguous. Further, repiication of findings is virtuaily impossible using

macro-levei variabies since their associated micro-ievei variabies often are different for

each iocation, faciiity, dassroom, and instructor invoived with the sites being studied.

An argument is made to take a more holistic approach to evaluating the effects of

correctional education programming, an approach which must start with the research

funding agencies and a movement away from recidivism as the primary outcome

variable.

Introduction

Since the late 1700's, incarcerated learners have relied on correctional

education (CE) and vocational training programs to enhance their chances of

not recidivating after reiease from prison. Those invoived with pianning,

delivering, and evaiuating correctionai education aiso believe that correctionai

education appears 'promising" in reducing recidivism (MacKenzie, 2002). The

term 'promising" is used because muitiple studies about correctionai education

286

The Joumai of Correctional Education 57(4)»December 2006 Lewis Why Correctional Education is Only "Promising"

have indicated only a weak, negative causal relationship between correctional

education and recidivism, and many of the studies that have found significant

support for this relationship have been piagued by weak methodological vigor

(MacKenzie, 2002). Arguably, today, we are only marginaily closer to answering

the question 'Does correctionai education reduce recidivism?' than was Robert

iVlartinson (1974) when he asked 'What works?'

Martinson (1974) often is associated with being one of the first researchers

to question whether any treatment program, educationai or vocationai, could

reduce recidivism. The Martinson report (1974) concluded by posing two

possibilities that would explain the findings, which suggested CE had little or no

impact on recidivism rates. The first was that 'It may be simpiy that our

programs aren t good enough - that the education we provide to inmates is

stiii poor education' (p. 49). The second possibie conclusion was that 'education

at its best, or that psychotherapy at its best, cannot overcome, or even

appreciabiy reduce the powerful tendency for offenders to continue in criminai

behavior (p. 49). What often is missed in iVlartinson's research is the fact that

he questioned the vaiidity of the research and research modei(s) as being too

pooriy designed in most of the studies he evaluated to offer any empiricai

support for the research findings. He did not state that correctional education

could not or does not reduce recidivism, but that the studies were too poorly

designed to offer any credence to their findings, regardiess of whether

correctional education was supported or unsupported in reducing recidivism.

Thirty years iater, the same criticism about research designs and the associated

findings stiii appear relevant (Cecil, Drapkin, MacKenzie, & Hickman, 2000; Hull,

Forrester, Brown, Jobe, & McCuiien, 2000; MacKenzie, 2002; Wiison, Gaiiagher,

a MacKenzie, 2000).

Tlie Current Correctional Education Evaluation Model The current research model for most correctional education is a post-treatment

quasi-experimentai design, with one treatment and one controi group, where

the groups are reieased from prison and monitored for one to three years after

release to determine the recidivism rate for each group. This survivai analysis

modei, which evaluates oniy macro-ievei variabies, often discounts aiternative

factors which might have caused a CE effect to have been dampened (e.g. post-

release factors), thus in most of the studies, evidence that CE works to reduce

recidivism is ambiguous. Further, repiication of findings is virtuaiiy impossible

using macro-ievel variabies (recidivism, CE, vocational training, release date)

since their associated micro-level variabies (definition of recidivism, type of CE,

287

The Joumai of Correctional Education 57(4)«December 2006 Why Correctional Education is Oniy "Promising" Lewis

CE deiivery method, dassroom environment, instructor expertise and attitude,

teaching methods) often are different for each iocation, facility, classroom, and

instructor invoived with the sites being studied.

For the muititude of CE studies that have identified a significant negative

relationship between CE and recidivism, the methodology employed often

vioiates key assumptions pertaining to probability sampling, measurement of

treatment, and/or statisticai anaiysis. The lack of scientific merit in this

particular research modei makes various programs appear effective in some

instances, but upon cioser evaluation the effect was either: 1) insignificant, 2)

invaiid due to seiection bias or attrition, or 3) iost in a muititude of programs

that made it impossible to assess exactiy which program or combination of

programs caused the reduction in recidivism.

MacKenzie (2002) noted that of the thirteen identified studies she reviewed

invoiving aduit basic education, oniy five possessed the methodoiogicai vigor or

scientific merit that permitted inciusion In her review. In reviewing the findings

of these five studies, MacKenzie noted that oniy two offered positive significant

findings that CE reduced recidivism, and one suggested that CE increased

recidivism, with the other two offering mixed resuits. Further, one of the studies

that supported the significant positive effects of CE could not segregate

educationai and vocationai treatments within the treatment group, ieaving the

researchers unciear about which treatment or combination of treatments were

necessary to reduce recidivism.

Wilson et al., (2000) reviewed 53 evaluations of specific CE and treatment programs. Of these 53 CE and treatment research studies, only three used

random sampiing, and high attrition ieveis compromised one of those. The

remaining 50 research studies were ali quasi-experimentai designs, but only

four had the statisticai controi to rate them higher than a 2 on the Maryiand

Scientific Methodology Scaie. Thus, out of the 53 CE and treatment research

studies identified by Wilson et al., oniy six rated higher than a 2 on the

Maryland Scientific Methodoiogy Scale 'A full 89 percent of the studies were

judged to be of poor methodoiogicai quaiity' (Wiison et al., 2000, p. 361).

Cecil et al. (2000) evaluated the findings of studies completed in the 1980s and

1990s that had researched the effects of 12 ABE and 5 Life-Skiil programs in

their ability to reduce recidivism. This evaluation found that most of the

research singulariy only focused on the program being evaiuated and faiied to

control for other programs and treatments. Further, these studies failed to

control for selection bias and there were inadequate foiiow-up periods after

reiease. Finally, in the 12 avaiiabie ABE evaiuations, which employed statisticai

288

The Joumai of Correctional Education 57(4) • December 2006

Lewis Why Correctional Education is Oniy "Promising"

tests, there were no statistically significant differences observed between the

treatment and the control groups (Cecii et ai., 2000, p. 213).

The evaluation of the five iife-skiiis programs found that aithough four of

the five evaluations possessed a reasonable degree of scientific merit (MSMS

scores of 3 or 4), the evaluations faiied to identify a statistically significant

difference between the treatment and controi groups. Aiso, on certain measures

of recidivism, the treatment group had a higher (but insignificant) rate of

recidivism than the control group.

Overaii, the assessment of the evaiuation iiterature of adult basic

education and life skills programs yieids incondusive resuits... Whiie these

studies assessed generally report positive findings, the iack of significance

tests, relatively few well-designed studies, and the existence of confiicting

data leads us to conclude that, at this point, there is not enough evidence

to draw definitive conclusions regarding the overall effectiveness of either

of these programs (Cecii et ai., 2000, p. 215).

Huil et al. (2000) found positive support for CE. 'These findings suggest that

successful completion of an educational program may be positively and directiy

reiated to post-reiease community adjustment' (p. 260). However, the

researchers acknowledged three research limitations: 1) the study did not

include information about attendance in other prison programs; 2) the study

failed to identify the motivational factors that caused individuais to complete or

withdraw from CE programs; and 3) the study faiied to identify the seiection

process for attendance in educational programs and prior education levels. The

inabiiity to address these limitations resulted in no statisticai analysis being

conducted to measure the effects of CE while controlling for other relevant

variabies. As Linton (2005) noted 'If the evaluator cannot pin down what

program is being evaiuated, what possible significance couid there be in any

numerical findings?' (p. 95).

The OCE/CEA three state recidivism study (Steurer, Smith, & Tracy, 2001) is

undoubtedly one of the most comprehensive studies ever compieted in the fieid

of CE and is possibly the most vigorous study that can be obtained using the

standard CE research evaiuation modei. Aithough the study conciudes that CE

can reduce recidivism (Grasmick, 2001; Wiikinson, 2001), the study suffers from

a majority of the shortcoming identified by Hull (2000) in his study. Treatments

could not be segregated and treatment lengths could not be determined, nor

could treatment during previous incarcerations be determined. How each

289

The Joumai of Correctionai Education 57(4)«December 2006 Why Correctionai Education is Oniy "Promising" Lewis

faciiity, throughout the three states, seiected who received treatment (most

serious offenders or best possibility of success upon release) could not be

identified, the treatment and controi groups were signlficantiy different on

variabies correiated with recidivism (age, race, arrest offense, etc.), and aithough

the direction of their reiationships to recidivism were identified, no statisticai

anaiysis was conducted to determine their standardized slope values or the

effects of CE while controiiing for other reievant variables.

Why CE Studies Faii to Repiicate Findings

Recidivism

Researchers must determine what wiii be used as a dependent variable(s) to

measure the effectiveness of CE programs. Recidivism is the most widely

accepted dependent variabie, since it is a primary outcome measure

acknowledged, or even mandated, by federal and state research funding

agencies (Linton, 2005), but this acceptance is not without criticism. Gehring

(2000) addresses the issue of using recidivism as a dependent variabie and

deveioped a matrix (p. 199) listing nine probiems with recidivism as a program

evaiuation measure. Joan Petersiiia aiso addressed this issue in the 1996

Encydopedia of American Prisons (McShane & Williams, 1996, p. 382). She noted

that recidivism is difficuit to measure because there is no agreement within the

criminal justice community about a definition. On the other hand,

conceptualizing or defining recidivism in different ways (re-arrest, reconviction,

re-incarceration, new offenses only, technicai vioiations, etc.) results in a

situation in which the data and results from one study often cannot be

compared to another, aithough both are measuring some form of recidivism.

Researchers most often define recidivism as re-arrest, reconviction, and/or re-

incarceration. Additional problems arise, however, as researchers attempt to

determine whether only new arrests shouid be the outcome measure, or should

re-arrest, reconviction, and/or re-incarceration inciude technicai parole

violations. By measuring recidivism at the macro level, micro causes for

recidivism are discounted (e.g., race, number of prior arrests, age at first arrest,

attitude and efficiency of parole officers, poiice officer discretion, social and

famiiy support factors). These discounted factors often are stronger indicators of

recidivism than attendance or compietion of CE (e.g., Langan & Levin, 2002;

Sabol, Adams, Parthasarathy, & Yuan, 2000).

A similar problem occurs when independent variabies used to determine

the cause for recidivism are measured at only the macro level. Researchers who

attempt to unravel the effects of CE on recidivism are confounded with multiple

290

The Joumai of Correctionai Education 57(4) • December 2006 Lewis Why Correctional Education is Oniy "Promising"

program treatments, poor institutional record keeping, and conflicting

definitions about what constitutes 'program compietion.' In reviewing the

iiterature about CE research, these differences often are ignored, affecting the

validity of the research (MacKenzie, 2002; Martinson, 1974; Wiison et al., 2000).

Assessing instructionai Deiivery MeOxods

Simiiar to the paroie officer's differentiai zeaiousness to enforce technical

violations that result in recidivism, educationai and treatment program

effectiveness are influenced both by the qualities brought to the classroom by

the correctional educator and by the instructional design. Measuring CE at the

macro level is to concur with the assumption that all correctionai education and

vocationai training are delivered effectiveiy and efficientiy in each ciassroom in

every correctionai faciiity, to the standard set forth by some reguiating agency.

Currentiy, aithough there are nationai standards for the preparation of

correctionai educators (see: http://www.ceanational.org/) adherence to these

standards is not mandatory; thus, states vary in their requirements for

correctionai educators. Many states find it less expensive to hire individuais

with minimai or no educational training to teach adult inmates, instead of

paying for state certified teachers. Even if state certified teachers are hired for

correctional education settings, they often are ill prepared to instruct in a

correctional environment.

Truthfuily, there is much about correctionai teaching for which we are

unprepared. The institutionai environment itself makes a great deai of

what we iearned for pubiic schooi teaching impossible... We feel alienated

and pooriy prepared for teaching in this most repressive environment. It is

no wonder that so many correctional teachers faii; either by ieaving

correctionai education or by accepting that education is just a

management strategy for the prison (Eggieston, 1992, p. 7).

Educationai Theory

Another factor that influences how the incarcerated iearner is impacted by the

treatment is how the materiai is presented. Simiiar to criminoiogicai theories for

reducing crime, the field of education has theories describing how people learn.

The style used by a particuiar educator is some admixture of personal

attributes, epistemoiogy, and theoretical perspective, which often is influenced

by the subject they teach. A major educational theory in CE is the learning

styles theory (Jurich, Casper, & Huli, 2001; Muse, 2001). Learning styles theory

291

The Joumai of Correctional Education 57(4) • December 2006 Why Correctionai Education is Oniy "Promising" Lewis

suggests that individuais perceive and process information differently based on

heredity, upbringing, and current environmentai demands.

Educators in the naturai sciences emphasize constructivism theory, where

meaning requires understanding the 'whoie" process instead of just memorizing

the parts. Other educational theories include behaviorism, observationai

learning, Piaget, neuroscience, brain-based learning, human inteiiigence, right

brain v. ieft brain, communities of practice, controi theory, and social cognition

(Biehier & Snowman, 1993; Eurich, 1990).

Learning wiii not occur if the correctionai educator faiis to Identify how

incarcerated learners grasp and retain materiai (e.g., Biehier 8 Snowman, 1993;

McKeachie, 2002). Any program wiii appear ineffective regardless of its true

effectiveness, if the materiai is deiivered in a manner, which does not foster

learning and retention. We again are confronted with Martinson's observation:

'It may be simpiy that our programs aren't good enough - that the education

we provide to inmates is still poor education' (p. 49).

The iVIedicai Modei Approach

The inabiiity to assess these variables, along with the probiems of

operationalizing and measuring recidivism, ensuring programs are implemented

and delivered as designed, the ethical and security concerns surrounding

random treatment and controi group assignment, treatment diffusion within the

confined prison environment, and a host of post reiease factors, suggest that it

is time to discard the traditional CE research model.

in evaiuating the effectiveness of correctionai and vocational education,

recidivism measures oniy one possibie outcome, often the return to a

correctional facility. It is argued that instead of using this survival anaiysis

modei, between treatment and non-treatment groups (which often cannot be

separated), that researchers should move to a more holistic approach. Even if

recidivism rates, as currentiy measured, do not espouse correctionai and

vocational education programs, this does not negate their other possible,

positive effects.

A more hoiistic approach, based initially on smaiier sampies and a

qualitative, medicai modei would permit a sociai productivity assessment of the

effectives of various CE and post-reiease programs. The outcome measures

wouid focus more on how various CE and post-reiease programs affected

reieased offenders, their famiiies, and their communities, whiie stiii controiiing

for recidivism and pubiic safety, without using them as the primary measures of

program effectiveness (e.g., Giever, Wiison, Zimmerman, Lewis, Staples, 2004).

292

The Joumai of Correctionai Education 57(4)»December 2006 Lewis Why Correctionai Education Is Only "Promising"

Ciever et al. (2004) recommended that future research about the effectiveness

of correctional and vocationai education shouid include individuai and sociai

indicators, as weii as recidivism, as measures of program success. Research

shouid focus on how correctionai and vocationai education impacts not only

on the former inmate, but also on community and family structure, child

development, and community safety. These measures of effectiveness should

include, but should not be limited to, how correctionai and vocational

education affects empioyment, family relations, income generated within the

community, positive decision-making, and intergenerationai mentoring.

Little research has been conducted to specifically identify what the

qualities-of-life are for those former inmates who have not returned to

correctionai facilities. From a more Masiowian perspective, what impact, if any,

has correctional and vocational education had on individual needs, such as

physiological, safety, sociai, esteem and self-actualization. Masiow (1972) noted

that the humanistic goal of education should be 'helping the person to become

the best that he is able to become' (p.163). He further noted that although this

often is not the goal of associative learning, such as that found in correctionai

and vocationai education programs, the experiences of participating in

education aiso offers humanistic experiences and interaction, thus offering seif-

deveiopment and seif-fulfiiiment opportunities.

Maslow's basic hierarchical needs include physiologicai (hunger, thirst,

sheiter) and safety needs (security and protection from physical harm). Future

research may question whether correctionai and vocational education offers a

former inmate a better chance at obtaining these basic needs. In addressing

sociai needs, research shouid attempt to address if correctional or vocationai

education had any impact on famiiy and community acceptance, on family

cohesion and affection, and on future and past relations and friendships. What,

if any, were the effects of correctionai and vocationai education on the

individuai? Did these programs aid the individual in achieving goals, obtaining

positive status in the community, in obtaining recognition and attention from

those s/he respects the most (esteem). Finaiiy research shouid determine if there

is a link between correctionai and vocational education and self actualization.

Limited research, mostiy from the quaiitative paradigm has started to address

these issues, but not from a correctionai or vocational perspective (e.g., O'Brien,

2001; Clear etai., 2001).

In discussing educational needs, Richie (2001) notes:

Most women report not having the academic or job-related skiiis or

293

The Joumai of Correctionai Education 57(4) • December 2006

Why Correctionai Education is Only "Promising" Lewis

experience to support themselves once they are released. They frequently

depend on famiiy members who themselves have limited resources, pubiic

agencies that have rigid eiigibiiity requirements for their services, and/or

episodic support from community-based agencies such as food pantries.

The women I interviewed described how the puii toward iiiegai activity

becomes more stronger as they exhaust these options (p. 377).

The need for empioyment and other physioiogicai and safety needs (subsistence

and safe, secure, and affordabie housing) were closely related or inten-eiated to

educationai opportunities (Richie, 2001). Ciear et ai. (2001) remark: Training and

education are the foundation of quality empioyment' (p. 346).

From a community perspective returning former inmates can be both a blessing and a curse, if former inmates return to oid habits they add disorder to what often is an already disrupted community. If the former offenders possess the skiiis, knowiedge, and attitude to successful and legaiiy reintegrate into the community, they offer an improvement in the community's quality-of-iife. Their successful presence can move community members, especially chiidren, from a ioss of seif-worth and seif-esteem, to becoming successful community members, thus enhancing society as a whoie (Clear et al., 2001, p. 343 - 346).

Conciusion

As with aii research studies, inciuding those designed to evaiuate CE, the

conceptual model must be correctly specified. Accurately specifying the model

requires the researcher to ensure that the modei contains aii the reievant variabies,

including those reiated to the experience, qualifications, and delivery methods of

the correctional educator. The instmctional method and teacher's

experience/attitude also are plausible factors that affect student comprehension

and retention, as weii as attrition rates, which are key issues when attempting to

assess the tme impact of CE. The research model cun-ently used to evaluate most

CE programming is limited to macro variabie assessment, which enhances the

plausibie threats of intemai, statistical conclusion, construct, and extemai validity.

A new research model is suggested that wouid offer a broader perspective

about the piausibie effects of CE programs. To transition to this more holistic

model, support would be needed from not only the researchers who assess the

effectiveness of CE programs, but from the funding agencies, who need to

reaiize that the current CE evaiuation model they favor, with its restrictions and

shortcomings, is an inappropriate modei to assess the true effects of CE

programs. Since Martinson's assessments of the modei in the 1970, through

294

The Joumai of Correctional Education 57(4)»December 2006 Lewis Why Correctional Education is Only "Promising"

one of the most comprehensive CE studies conducted to date (Three State

Recidivism Study), the modei has proven to be ineffective in accurateiy

evaiuating the impact of correctional education and vocational training

programs. Linton (2005) is absolutely correct in his statement that 'If the

evaluator cannot pin down what program is being evaiuated, what possible

significance couid there be in any numericai findings?' (p. 95) and the argument

made here is that the traditionai model for evaluating correctionai education,

with its dependency on macro-level and misconceptuaiized variables, does not

reflect the true impact of correctionai education on the individual, his/her

family, or the community.

References Biehier, R. F. & Snowman, J. (1993). Psyctiology applied to teaching (7th eel.). Boston:

Houghton Mifflin Company.

Cecii, D. K., Drapkin, D. A., MacKenzie, D. L, a Hickman, L J. (2000). TTie effectiveness of aduit basic education and Iife-skiiis programs in reducing recidivism: A review and assessment of the research. Journal of Correctional Education, 51, 207 - 226.

Gear, T. R., Rose, D. R., a Ryder, J. A. (2001). incarceration and the community: The probiem of removing and returning offenders. Crime and Deiinquency, 47, 335 - 351.

Eggieston, C. (1992). Correctionai education teacher preparation: An overview and a look

toward a third generation. Issues in Teacher Education, 1,7- 15.

Eurich, N. P. (1990). The learning industry: Education for adult workers. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Lawrencevilie, NJ: Princeton University

Press.

Cehring, T (2000). Recidivism as a measure of correctionai education program success. Journal of Correctional Education, 51, 197 - 205.

Giever, D., Wiison, N. K., Zimmerman, S., Lewis, J., Stapies, H. (2004, iViarch). Measuring outcomes for correctional education. Paper presented at the 41 st meeting of the

Academy of Criminai Justice Sciences, i^s Vegas, NV.

Grasmick, N. S. (2001, November 19). Study shows education reduces crime in Maryland and

two other states. Maryiand State Department of Education News Reiease.

Huii, K. A., Forrester, S., Brown, J., Jobe, D. a McCuiien, C. (2000). Anaiysis of recidivism rates for participants of the academic/vocationai/transitionai programs offered by the

Virginia Department of Correctionai BducaWon. Journal of Correctional Education, 51,

256 - 261.

Jurich, S., Casper, M., a Huil, K. A. (2001). Correctionai educators: A needs assessment

study. Journal of Correctional Education, 52, 23 - 27

Langan, P. A. & Levin, D. J. (2002, June). Recidivism of prisoners released in 1994. Bureau of Justice Special Report (NO 193427).

295

The Joumai of Correctional Education 57(4)«December 2006 Why Correctional Education is Only "Promising" Lewis

Linton, J. (2005). United States Department of Education update. The Journal of Correctional Education, 56, 90 - 95.

MacKenzie, D. L. (2002). Reducing the criminai activities of known offenders and deiinquents: Crime prevention in the courts and corrections. Evidence Based Crime Prevention (Chapter 9), New York: Routiedge. 358 - 380.

Martinson, R. (1974, Spring). What works? - Questions and answers about prison reform. Public Interest 24, 22 - 53.

Masiow, A. H. (1972). The Farther Reaches of Human Nature. New York: Viking Compass Edition. (Reprinted by New York: Penguin Books 1972 - 1979).

Masiow, A. H., Frager, R., 8 Fadiman, J. (1987). Motivation and Personality (3rd Ed.). Boston, MA: Addison-Wesiey.

McKeachie, W. J. (2002). McKeachie s teaching tips (nth ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Miffiin Company.

McShane, M. D. a Wiiiiams, F P. (Eds.). (1996). Encydopedia of American Prisons. New York: Gariand Publishing Company.

Muse, F. M. (2001, March). A iook at teaching to iearning styies: Is it reaiiy worth the effort? Journal of Con-ectionai Education, 52, 5 - 9 .

O Brien, P. (2001). 'Just like baking a cake': Women describe the necessary ingredients for successfui reentry after incarceration. Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human Services, 287 - 295.

Richie, B. E. (2001). Chaiienges incarcerated women face as they return to their communities: Findings from iife history interviews. Crime and Delinquency, 47. 368 - 389.

Saboi, W. J., Adams, W. P., Parthasarathy, B., & Yuan, Y. (2000). Offenders returning to

federai prison, 1986-1997 http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/orfp97pdf

Steurer, S. J., Smith, L, 8 Tracy, L. (2001, September 30). OCE/CEA three state recidivism

study. http://www.ceanationai.org/documents/3StateFinai.pdf

Wilkinson, R. A. (2001, November 29). Nationai study iiiustrates dramatic positive effect of Ohio prison education programs. Ohio Department of Rehabiiitation and Correction News Reiease. http://www.drc.state.oh.us/Pubiic/press107htm.

Wiison, D. B., Gallagher, C. A., 8 MacKenzie, D. L (2000). A meta-anaiysis of corrections- based education, vocation, and work programs for aduit offenders. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 37, 347 - 368.

Biograpiiicai Sketch

JOHN LEWIS graduated from Southern iiiinois University with an undergraduate degree in Workforce Education and Deveiopment, and a MA and Ph.D. from indiana University of Pennsyivania. Cun-entiy, he is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Administrative of Justice at The University of Southern Mississippi (Hattiesburg).

296