Prison-based Literacy 1
Intergenerational Literacy Programs for Incarcerated Parents and Their Families:
A Review of the Literature
By
William R. Muth, Ph.D.
Virginia Commonwealth University
wrmuth@vcu.edu
May, 2006
Abstract
Researchers from many fields have reported the benefits of family literacy programs to
children, parents, families, and society. Although some studies included incarcerated
parents and their children, very little research has specifically targeted this growing
population. This is problematic because prisoners -- particularly parents with limited
literacy ability – and their children and other family members often experience profound
challenges that include learning, coping, and maintaining contact. These challenges may
be ameliorated, to some degree, by family literacy programs. This paper reports on what
we know about the effects of prison-based family literacy programs and argues for their
careful expansion. Much remains to be understood about the complexity of these
programs and how they should be designed, implemented, and evaluated, in order to
build on the few existing models. When feasible, on-line sources are linked to the text.
Prison-based Literacy 2
Introduction: Incarcerated Parents, Children, and Family Ties
In a secondary analysis of the 1992 National Adult Literacy Assessment (NALS)
involving 1147 U.S. prisoners, Haigler, Harlow, O’Connor and Campbell (1994) found
that about half of the adult prisoner sample lacked a high school diploma or GED.
Further, about a third of federal, state and local prisoners performed at the lowest of five
levels on a series of prose and document exercises included in the 1992 National Adult
Literacy Survey (NALS). (An updated assessment, the National Assessment of Adult
Literacy, was administered to U.S. prisoners in 2004; a report on this population’s
literacy trends is scheduled to be released in the summer of 2006. Individuals performing
at NALS level one cannot reliably perform tasks such as comparing and contrasting two
pieces of information from a simple text and may be at a disadvantage when competing
for better paying jobs in today’s workplace (Comings, Parrella, & Soricone, 1999). Snow
and Strucker (2000) estimated that as many as 40% of those performing at the lowest
NALS literacy level may be functioning at or below the third grade level.
Due largely to tougher sentencing laws, the United States now incarcerates at 5-8
times the rate of developed countries in Western Europe and Canada, and, since 1998,
has surpassed the incarceration rate of the Soviet Union (Bureau of Justice Statistics,
2006; Mauer, 2003). Since 1980, the U.S. prison population has increased by 334
percent; over 2.1 million people are currently being held in jails or prisons (Bureau of
Justice Statistics, 2006).
The majority of these adult prisoners are parents. The number of incarcerated
women is expanding more rapidly than that of male incarcerates. In 2003, U.S. Federal
and State prisons confined over 100,000 adult women (Bureau of Justice Statistics,
Prison-based Literacy 3
2006). The Child Welfare League (CWL) (2004) estimated that three-fourths of all
female prisoners were mothers. Seventy-two percent of these mothers were the primary
caretakers of their children prior to arrest; further, two-thirds of the moms had children
under the age of 16. In comparison, 55 percent of male prisoners were fathers with
children under age 18; 44 percent of these fathers lived in the home of at least one of their
children at the time of arrest.
Data about the children of these prisoners are sketchy. The CWL (2004) estimated
that two million or more children in the United States had lost one or both parents to
prison. CWL also found that these children were six times more likely to enter the
criminal justice system than other children and that seven percent of all African
American children could be expected to be imprisoned some time in their lives if the
current rates of incarceration continue. The Human Rights Watch (2002) found that
African American children were over eight times more likely to do time than Caucasian
children, and Latino/a children were three times more likely; these ratios were much
higher in some states.
Parke & Clarke-Stewart (2001) found that children separated from their parents as
a result of incarceration experienced higher rates of anxiety disorders, withdrawal,
depression, guilt, shame, anger, aggression, school phobias, and poor academic
performance. Although these problems often started before the mother or father was
arrested, parental removal tended to exacerbate them. Travis, Solomon and Waul (2001)
reported that most children of prisoners did not get to visit their parents in prison, had
greater exposure to poverty, and had experienced more parental abuse than other
children. They also found that 55% of adjudicated youth had a parent in prison, which
Prison-based Literacy 4
suggests a grim, intergenerational cycle of involvement with the criminal justice system,
especially among poor and minority families.
Although contact between prisoners and their children is challenged by some
proponents of tough sentencing for criminals, others emphasize the cost of separation in
terms of (a) the risks to successful reintegration after prison (Covington, 2001; Hairston,
2001); (b) harm to children (Bernstein, 2005; Gadsden, Davis, Jacobs, Edwards, LaPoint,
Muth, et al., 2005); (c) and corrosive effects on the community (Rose & Clear, 2001).
Gonnerman (2004) described the devastating impact of a mother’s incarceration on her
mother, siblings, and four children. One son -- who was a preschooler when his mother
was arrested and was currently in prison himself -- wrote to his mother regularly for dayto-day guidance, after more than ten years of separation. Emani Davis, who grew up
visiting her father in prison, noted, “Many people think we are doing a service to
children, when a parent is doing life, in having them sever contact. But as children, we
understand who we are as human beings by understanding who our parents are”
(Bernstein, 2005, p. 95). Gadsden et al. (2005) noted there is still much we do not know
about the impact of the loss of parental contact and care on children. Further, it is not
always clear if and when it is in the best interest of the children to reunite them with a
parent who abused them in the past.
When parents are incarcerated, literacy practices such as reading and writing
letters are often the most important ways they remain connected to their children, even
when the parent has limited literacy ability (Muth, 2004). Thus, prison-based family
Prison-based Literacy 5
literacy programs1 may provide one important way to support parents’ efforts to build
and maintain close ties with their children and, at the same time, support literacy learning
(for the parent) and greater school success (for the child). This literature review is an
attempt to find out what is known about intergenerational literacy programs as they relate
to families that have loved ones – especially, but not exclusively, parents -- in prison.
Literature Review
Although few studies were specifically designed to understand family literacy
programs for incarcerated parents and their children, the broader field of family literacy
enjoys a growing body of scholarship. A search of the Education Resources Information
Center (ERIC) database using the term “family literacy” in the title yielded 1,187 hits.
When the terms “family literacy” and “prison” were used, the number of hits dropped to
10, and “family literacy and incarcerat*” resulted in 15 hits. A search of the PsycINFO
using “family literacy” produced 117 hits, and when either “prison” or “incarcerat*” were
added, the search resulted in no hits.
In addition to the studies found through the ERIC and PsycINFO datatbases, I
referenced six major publications: (a) The Goodling Institute for Research in Family
Literacy Annotated Bibliography (Askov et al., 2005); (b) Family Literacy – Who
Benefits? (Padak & Rasinski, 2003); (c) Children of Incarcerated Parents: The
Implications of Parent Absence for Children’s Lives at School and Home (Gadsden et al.,
2005); (d) Bringing Family Literacy to Incarcerated Settings: An Instructional Guide
(Hudson River Center, 2001); (e) Life on the Outside, The Prison Odyssey of Elaine
Bartlett, (Gonnerman, 2004); and (f) All Alone in the World: Children of the
I use the term ‘prison-based family literacy programs’ to refer to any programs that support incarcerated
parents through the use of family literacy approaches. Sometimes these programs include ‘outside’
components that support the children as well.
1
Prison-based Literacy 6
Incarcerated, (Bernstein, 2005). Lastly, I consulted a number of U.S.-based centers that
provide support for incarcerated parents and their children, including: the Family and
Corrections Network, the Center for Children of Incarcerated Parents, the Urban Institute,
and Motheread.
In the following sections, findings from the literature review are presented. First,
broad themes that pertain to family literacy are discussed in terms of their relevance to
prison-based programs. Then findings specific to prison-based programs are presented.
Who Benefits from Family Literacy Programs?
Padak and Rasinski (2003) summarized the findings of 93 family literacy studies
from the adult literacy, emergent literacy, child development, and systems analysis fields.
Although only one study referenced prisons in the title, most involved families with
demographics that were similar to those of families of prisoners. These demographics are
well known and include people who are poor, marginalized, minority, English language
learners, migrant workers, and immigrants, as well as those with disabilities, limited
schooling, poor work histories, and health problems. Padak and Rasinski’s review
provides compelling evidence that family literacy programs helped children and adults
improve academically, linguistically, in their attitudes toward learning, and in written
communication. Adults who participated in these programs became more knowledgeable
and aware of their roles and responsibilities as parents and experienced more job
satisfaction. Families grew closer when parents became more involved with their
children’s schooling and read to them more frequently and engagingly.
Regarding benefits to adults, a number of researchers cited advantages of family
literacy programs over traditional or workplace literacy programs (Askov, 2004;
Prison-based Literacy 7
McDonald & Scollay, 2002; Padak & Rasinski, 2003; Purcell-Gates, Degener, Jacobson
& Soler, 2000; Ricciuti, St. Pierre, Lee & Parsad, 2004). These advantages included
persistence in adult literacy programs, higher rates of learning and GED completions,
stronger bonds between parents and children, and improved goal setting and selfadvocacy.
The extent to which these findings hold for families separated by prison is
unclear. To what degree can incarcerated mothers and fathers become involved in their
children’s day-to-day school problems and projects, and health care needs? To what
extent do parents in prison have opportunities to read with their children or even
communicate with them? The few studies that address these questions are explored
below.
Characteristics of Family Literacy Programs (in General)
In this section, selected findings from a wide range of family literacy studies are
summarized. Most findings do not specifically pertain to incarcerated parents or their
children. Of course, almost all studies had some relevance to prison-based family literacy
programs. Findings presented here represent select themes that offered insights or raised
questions related to programs for families separated by prison. The findings do not
represent a comprehensive review.
Trust. Numerous studies cited the need for building trust between schools and
families (Bermudez, 1994; Feiler, 2005; Miller, 2005; Padak & Sapin, 2001; Smith &
Elish-Piper, 2002; Tice, 2000). For example, Bermudez (1994) cited the importance of
involving Latino/a parents in mutual goal setting in order to gain their trust. Miller (2005)
emphasized the need to help teachers develop the awareness and skills they need to
Prison-based Literacy 8
understand the cultural, linguistic, and psychological barriers experienced by some Even
Start parents as they strove to become advocates for their children’s education. Others
(National Center for Family Literacy, 2001; Tice, 2000) have noted the need for buy-in at
all levels and the advantages of including families in program design and operation
decisions.
Trust and culture issues often undermine even well meaning prison programs
(Muth, 2004; Warner, 1998). Prison staff are warned to be wary of the manipulative
language games that inmates play (Allen & Bosta, 1981). Yet the need for a level of trust
in prison classrooms may be no less necessary than in the community.
Respect. A second theme, related to trust, addressed the need for practitioners to
respect the cultures, languages, and other strengths of the families and not regard them
primarily as deficient. Delpit (1988) noted the way the dominant culture silences the
voices of those without power, and how those in power are the least aware of power
structures. Nevertheless, others have described ways that curricula were co-constructed
with the clients and reflected the learners’ strengths and interests (Crowther & Tett, 1997;
Feiler, 2005; Pahl & Kelly, 2005; Powell & D’Angelo, 2000; Schwartz, 1999). For
example, Hannon (1998) trained parents to be program facilitators; Hutchinson (2000)
empowered mothers to become action researchers so that they could investigate the
power structures in their communities; Delgado-Gaitan (1990) described ways Mexican
parents taught each other advocacy skills. MacCleod (2004) argued that children, as well
as parents, are capable of accurately interpreting their own experiences.
Recent studies found that prison literacy programs often embodied top-down
classrooms where prisoners’ personal interests (Muth, 2004) funds of knowledge
Prison-based Literacy 9
(Gonzalez, Moll & Amanti, 2005) and voice (Wright, 2001) were uninvited (Duguid,
2000; Gehring, 2000). Yet, classroom cultures that respect student discourses and
learners’ funds of knowledge may be as important in prison-based family literacy
programs as they are elsewhere.
Adult reading components. A third theme emerged from studies of reading and
reading instruction. Based on studies of children and adults, a growing understanding of
reading difficulties, reading assessment, and effective reading instruction for adult
literacy learners is emerging (Kruidenier, 2002). Strucker (1997) found that silent reading
comprehension tests alone do not provide sufficient diagnostic information for literacy
teachers and can result in vague and misleading ideas about the underlying reading
abilities and needs of the adult learners. The National Center for Family Literacy
(McShane, 2005) prepared a synthesis of research related to adult reading components.
While the first two themes above-- trust and respect -- embody socialconstructivist concerns about the context of literacy learning, the reading components
literature reflects key insights about teaching reading to adults from a cognitive
psychology perspective. While some have debated the utility of one stance over the other,
Gadsden (2002) suggested an integrated way to approach both:
Although the two stances are associated with distinctive research camps, they do
not represent all-or-nothing commitments in actual practice. In short, it is likely
that most family literacy services are developed with some combination of the
two stances and use approaches that draw upon both. (p. 252)
These two approaches to thinking about family literacy may have great impact on
correctional educators and policy makers. The rich range of qualitative and quantitative
Prison-based Literacy 10
measures used to evaluate family literacy programs reflect Gadsden’s argument for an
integrated/inclusive approach (Benjamin & Lord, 1996; National Center for ESL Literacy
in Education; 2002) and support the need for bi-cultural designs for prison-based literacy
programs (Muth, 2004).
Role of fathers. Consistently, researchers found that fathers mattered (Bernal et
al., 2000; Caddell, 1996; Green, 2003; Hairston, 2001; Karther, 2002; Stile & Ortiz,
1999). Bernal et al. (2000) reported on an extensive dialogue with Hispanic fathers and
urged service providers to continue to engage this population in family literacy program
design. Karther (2002) noted that even fathers with lower literacy ability valued and tried
to support their children’s schooling. Green (2003) found that a four-week self-guided
program increased the amount and quality of father-child reading together time; it also
raised fathers’ perceptions of their relationships with their children.
Children and families of prisoners are at-risk for becoming hardened to the
incarcerated father’s absence (Gadsden et al., 2005). The findings in this section suggest
that we should not exclude incarcerated fathers from parenting and family literacy
initiatives.
Role of mothers. Family literacy programs for incarcerated mothers and their
children may be even more urgently needed than father-child programs. Some studies of
incarcerated females (Covington, 2001; Gonnerman, 2004) found that the extent of harm
to children who have lost mothers to prison tended to be immediate and severe, since
these mothers were often single parents. Incarcerated mothers were often perceived as
bad mothers; however, the pain of separation from children may be much greater for
mothers than fathers (Covington, 2001). Despite the unique and intense needs of
Prison-based Literacy 11
incarcerated mothers, prison policies tend to be heavily male-oriented. Covington warned
that these policies can relegate female prisoners to a lower -- or even invisible -- status
and stressed that programs for mothers must not be cloned from programs designed for
male prisoners. She argued that the problem of the invisibility extended from the
incarcerated mother to her children:
The invisibility of women in the criminal justice system often extends to their
children. The situation of these children is exacerbated by the fact that there are
few, if any, sources of data about offenders’ children. However, one study by
Johnston (1995) identified three factors--parent-child separation, enduring
traumatic stress, and an inadequate quality of care--that were consistently present
in the lives of children of incarcerated parents. The impact of these factors on
children’s ability to successfully progress through the various developmental
stages can be profound. (p. 7)
Intergenerational learning. The distinction between family literacy and
intergenerational literacy emerged as another theme with implications for prison-based
family literacy programs. Gadsden (2002) described intergenerational literacy as a
specific “strand of inquiry that focuses on the transmission of knowledge and behavior
from one generation to the next” (p. 259). She noted that intergenerational learning is bidirectional and includes the way the young assist their elders as well as the more typical
transmission from parent to child. Weinstein (1998) described younger English language
learners that both supported and challenged their elders and the established family
culture. Geraci (2000) found that youthful offenders in a family literacy program wrote
letters of apologies to their parents. Because literacy learners in prison strive to remain
Prison-based Literacy 12
connected with spouses, parents, siblings, cousins and friends, as well as children (Muth,
2004), family literacy programs may be more effectively designed as bi-directional,
intergenerational programs.
Conclusion. A wide range of studies from social-constructivist, cognitive
psychology, and other perspectives have described the characteristics of successful
family literacy programs. These include the need for trust and respect among clients and
practitioners, the use of research-supported insights for teaching reading, the inclusion of
fathers as well as mothers, and the distinctions between family literacy and
intergenerational literacy frameworks. Most of the findings were derived from studies of
family literacy programs in the community. Many of the same characteristics identified
as necessary for successful community-based programs may hold for prison-based
programs as well. Despite this knowledge base, families divided by prison, and the
practitioners who strive to serve them, face unique challenges that must be addressed
separately.
Benefits of Prison-based Family Literacy Programs
The findings in this section are tentative due to the small number of studies cited.
Eight studies specifically designed to address prison-based family literacy programs were
found (see Table). Most of these studies were descriptive rather than evaluative. The
findings, though preliminary, may be useful for designing pilot programs and framing
larger studies.
Prison-based Literacy 13
Table 1
Summary of Studies of Prison-Based Family Literacy Programs
Reference
Adult Pop.
Descriptors
Findings
Literacy Assistance Center (2003).
Perspectives on Family Literacy. New
York (ERIC DOC: ED480836)
12 incarcerated
mothers;
Pennsylvania
Even Start
10 week, 1 morning per week, “literacy enhancement” program
+ effects
↑ journaling
↑ communication with childr
↑ engagement with literacy p
journal writing, written and oral narratives, to share similar life
experiences
mothers published 2 books
goal: to↑ mother-child interactions through teleconferencing,
recorded books & messages
concerns
lock downs caused ↑ interrup
children could not pick out b
holistic program combining life-skill, health ed, parenting,
personal development
Geraci, P. M. (2000). Reaching out the
write way. Journal of Adolescent and
Adult Literacy, 43, 632-637.
fathers in a MN
State
maximumsecurity prison
system
GED students reading on 6-12 grade level
men wrote books for children, parents, siblings
tutors trained by local graphic artist in storybook writing and
bookmaking
goal: ↑ open and honest communication between prisoners and
family members
+ effects
↑ self revelation among priso
apology to parent for harm ca
↑ self confidence in writing
men related to each other mo
and openly in the classroom t
concerns
outside this class, fathers rare
while incarcerated
Martin, B. A. (1991). Where are the
fathers in family literacy? (Final Rep. No.
98-1032). Bethlehem, PA: Northampton
Community College
10 fathers, ages
21-36, in a PA
State prison
16 weeks, 4hrs/ week
literacy classes for young fathers and their children
+ effects
↑ fathers’ literacy skills
↑ fathers’ acceptance of self a
goal: determine best reading methods specific to father’s role in
family literacy; to develop a curriculum for literacy learning for
young fathers
concerns
children were not able to part
development
focus: parental awareness, modeling parenting skills, selecting
high-interest books and books with positive male & female role
models
read alouds
language experience stories; father-child combined writing
Northampton Community College.
(1995). When bonds are broken: Family
literacy for incarcerated fathers and their
children. (Final Rep.Year Three July 1,
1994 - June 30, 1995). Bethlehem, PA:
Author.
150
incarcerated
fathers, North
Hampton Co
(PA) Prison
10-12 fathers per cycle, each cycle was 10 weeks long and
included 6 hours literacy and 6 hours parenting, per week
in ABE, ESL or
GED classes
bi-weekly visitations with planned literacy activities
Hispanic 38%
Black 328
White 33%
weekly communication with children through letter writing,
pictures, taped readings of storybooks
family liaison worker visited homes, and assisted with
communications among father, children, caregivers, prison staff
volunteer tutors
+ effects
average reading gains in one= 1.7 grade equivalents
recidivism rates (compared to
year one: 49%
year two: 27%
↑ gentle and attentive attitude
↑ participation rate of caregiv
↑ linkages with Lehigh U. &
↑ institution support, e.g. spe
participants)
after parole classes to help with reintegration
concerns
need to expand ancillary prog
caregivers’ low self esteem n
e.g., intensive al-anon suppor
co-dependency issues
Prison-based Literacy 14
Reference
Parecki, A. D., Paris, S. G., &
Seidenberg, J. L. (1996). Characteristics
of Effective Family Literacy Programs in
Michigan. (No. TR96-07). Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania. National
Center on Adult Literacy.
Adult Pop.
incarcerated
fathers, ages
19-45,
Michigan State
prison; mid-tohigh level
readers
Descriptors
16 weeks, 2 classes/ week, 2 hours/class; 30 students per class
Parents as Partners in Reading program
3-phase voluntary program: (a) coaching/modeling, (b) peer
practice, (c) father-child reading in visiting room
Findings
+ effects
theoretically sound model
creative and adaptive attempt
concerns
not a comprehensive FL prog
no formal evaluation done
goal: to encourage fathers to read storybooks to their children
Gadsden, V., Muth, W., Davis, J. E.,
Jacobs, C., Edwards, M., LaPoint, V., &
Slaughter-Defoe, D. (2005, April).
Children of incarcerated parents: The
implications of parent absence for
children's lives at school and home. Paper
presented at the meeting of the American
Education Research Association,
Montreal.
30 incarcerated
fathers from
one private and
one Federal
U.S. prison
comparison of summer camp, video conferencing, recorded story
book reading programs across two institutions
+ effects
some academic improvement
with incarcerated father
concerns
50% caregivers contacted by
negative behavior
secretive nature of father’s in
labeling/judging on part of ca
exists, caregivers do tell teac
children & caregivers have “n
child; but limited understand
goals
children jealous of peers with
to fathers
children increasingly missed
struggled with resentment, di
affection for father
Hudson River Center (2001). Bringing
family literacy to incarcerated settings:
An instructional guide. From
incarceration to productive lifestyle.
Glenmont, NY: Hudson River Center for
Program Development, Inc.
female and
male prisoners
in 11 NY State
correctional
facilities
strong rationale for family literacy programs in prison
Genisio, M. H. (1996). Breaking barriers
with books: A father's book-sharing
program from prison. Journal of
Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 40, 92100.
7 medium
security fathers
family visits
some prison-based literacy pr
family lit component
numerous program designs and family literacy models
guide for practitioners to implement FL programs in prison
others contextualize literacy
parenting framework; for e.g
i. using children’
discuss morals o
ii. providing read
contextualized a
iii. contextualizin
(e.g. fractions ar
iv. writing resume
out school form
vi. practicing job
fathers gained proficiency in
5 2-hour workshops to support storybook reading experiences
weekly parent support meetings
dialoguing through journals
observation of visiting room interactions
fathers increased their owner
helping to establis
supporting each o
organizing activit
other children
continuing the sup
official program e
Academic achievement. Like other family literacy programs, prison-based ones
appear to improve children’s performance in school and raise parents’ reading test scores.
Prison-based Literacy 15
One study (Northampton Community College, 1995) involved 150 incarcerated fathers
enrolled in ABE, ESL, or GED programs, who participated in a 10-week family literacy
program. Fathers took parenting classes, received support for letter writing, recorded
readings of storybooks, and visited with their children on a bi-weekly basis. On average,
the fathers gained 1.7 grade equivalents in reading, as measured on the Basic English
Skills Test or Test of Adult Basic Education. Although the gains are admirable, no
comparisons were made with literacy learners who did not participate in the family
literacy component. An earlier pilot study (Martin, 1991) found that 10 incarcerated
fathers’ literacy skills improved after a 16-week program that involved parenting
awareness, storybook selection and reading, and language experience approach activities,
but did not involve the children. The authors did not describe how the improvements
were measured or the extent of the gains.
In a study of 30 incarcerated fathers, Gadsden et al. (2005) found that some
caretakers perceived that their children improved in school after regaining contact with
their fathers through bi-weekly videoconferences, summer camps, and mailings of taperecorded books. Although some caretakers also reported that their children experienced
frequent school-related difficulties, both academic and social, they felt these problems
were in part attributable to growing into adolescence and would have been worse without
the father contact.
Literacy practices. Ports (see Literacy Assistance Center, 2003) described a 10week “reading, discussion, and writing program for [12 incarcerated] mothers” (p. 12).
She found that the women increased the quality and quantity of journal writing and letter
writing, and grew more confident about reading storybooks out loud. Geraci (2000) found
Prison-based Literacy 16
that incarcerated literacy learners who participated in a storybook writing and publishing
program improved the quality of their letter writing. For example, one prisoner wrote a
letter of apology to his estranged mother that rekindled their relationship. Similarly, other
studies of incarcerated fathers that participated in family literacy programs found that the
fathers became gentler and more attentive toward their children (Northampton
Community College, 1995) and more skillful (Genisio, 1996) during storybook reading
time in the visiting room.
Communication with children. Ports (Literacy Assistance Center, 2003) reported
that incarcerated mothers who participated in a 10-week family literacy program had
more communications with their children, including longer and more meaningful letters.
Others also reported an increase in written communication between parents and children
(Genisio, 1996; Geraci, 2000; Northampton Community College, 1995). Ports argued that
“literacy-based programs designed to increase parent-child communications are one of
the mechanisms for helping mothers and children reestablish important ties” (p. 12).
Transformative learning. Mezirow (1991) used the term transformative to
characterize learning that caused a shift in one’s perception of the world or one’s self
concept. Examples of transformative learning were found in the literature on prison-based
family literacy programs. Ports (Literacy Assistance Center, 2003) described how
incarcerated mothers in a family literacy program used journals and storytelling to
discover and construct their identities as mothers separated from their children. She
quotes one mother’s evaluation of the program: “I learned how to put my life in words to
make me feel better about me. And I learned how to put things into words that I never
thought I could” (p. 17).
Prison-based Literacy 17
Martin (1991) found that incarcerated fathers who participated in prison-based
family literacy programs learned to accept themselves as literacy role models for their
children. Gadsden et al. (2005) noted a shift in the way incarcerated fathers thought about
themselves after participating in a family literacy program: “What once was the lure of
the streets becomes the lure of possibly spending time with their children” (p. 24). The
fathers reported, and the prison administration confirmed, that their day-to-day behavior
had improved as a result of the program. Geraci (2000) described how incarcerated
fathers used autobiographical writing to reflect upon their pasts and to reconnect with
their estranged families. The men also constructed a safe space within the classroom to
share personal experiences.
Only one of the seven prison-based family literacy studies addressed the children
of incarcerated parents. Gadsden et al. (2005) found that these children often kept the
status of their absent parent a secret; however, they quickly formed a closely knit
community when they met at a summer camp program that brought the children and their
parents together. This group of children also collaborated to create two books of poetry
that gave voice to their experiences and search for self-revelation.
Other benefits. Three other findings suggest further advantages of prison-based
family literacy programs and illustrate the pressing need for further study. (a) High rates
of participation and engagement were reported for incarcerated mothers (Literacy
Assistance Center, 2003) and caregivers (Northampton Community College, 1995). (b)
Two studies sited lower rates of recidivism for fathers who participated in family literacy
programs while in prison. Northampton Community College (1995) found that 49 percent
of one cohort (n=49), and 27 percent of a second cohort (n=48) of participants returned to
Prison-based Literacy 18
prison compared to a general recidivism rate of 80 percent. Genisio (1999) also found
lower recidivism rates for participants. Both Genisio (1999) and Gadsden et al. (2005)
cited lower disciplinary problems among participants while incarcerated.
Conclusion. The findings from studies of prison-based family literacy programs
are promising but far from conclusive. They include improved academic gains for parents
and children; higher quality and more frequent literacy practices, including written
correspondences between parents and their children and other family members;
transformations in the way parents and children view themselves and their worlds; high
levels of engagement; lower recidivism rates; and better behavior in prison. These
encouraging findings must be tempered by the paucity of rigorous studies available.
Some Unique Concerns and Key Characteristics of Prison-based Family Literacy
Programs
To a large degree, this section summarizes findings and recommendations from
two major works: Gadsden et al. (2005) and the Hudson River Center (2001). It contains
two parts: (a) a compilation of unique issues that families and practitioners face; and (b)
recommendations for prison-based family literacy programs. The points raised here
represent neither a comprehensive set of contextualizing issues nor a theoretical
framework grounded in research. Nevertheless, they represent the best we know so far
and can be used to inform the design of pilot programs and future studies.
Feelings hidden and revealed. Gadsden et al. (2005) interviewed 30 fathers
incarcerated in federal prisons who had participated in prison-based family literacy
programs. In addition, the team interviewed the children and their caregivers, the staff of
the non-profit organization that provided the program, and the staff of the two prisons
Prison-based Literacy 19
that hosted the program. The Gadsden team found that some children experienced a sense
of shame that intensified problems they were having at school. One boy noted, “I don’t
feel…accepted by the teachers…I don’t think they never [sic] really liked me…cause I
made a bad impression last year…Having a father in prison also creates a bad
impression” (p. 18). Because of the perceived bias against children with fathers in prison,
this boy did not want his teachers to know about his incarcerated parent. Caregivers may
also feel rejected by schools and overwhelmed by children’s needs. One mother/caregiver
noted that her adolescent son’s school turned a “deaf ear” on her, as she struggled to get a
handle on his behavior (p. 10).
Feelings of shame and embarrassment associated with incarceration may result in
secrets within the family as well. Gadsden et al. (2005) found that 60 percent of the
children did not know what their fathers had done that caused them to go to prison. Some
children were not told, or did not learn, about their fathers’ incarceration until they were
older. When one boy did learn that his father had been in prison (not in a neighboring
state as he had been told), he became deeply resentful of his father and deeply mistrustful
of his mother for lying to him. As children tried to make sense of their incarcerated
parents’ absence, they struggled with conflicting emotions of shame, sadness,
uncertainty, anger, resentment. They felt resentment that they had to suffer for the bad
things their fathers had done, and they were jealous of peers whose fathers showed up for
sports and other events. Even those children who did not have a close relationship with
their fathers before incarceration felt the pain of absence.
Despite the children’s anger and resentment, Gadsden et al. (2005) noted, “We
were struck by the children’s outpouring of affection for their fathers and for the time
Prison-based Literacy 20
afforded them through telephone calls, videoconferences [and] the family literacy
program” (p. 24). The children who participated in a summer camp program with their
fathers were “overwhelmed with happiness” (p. 24) at being able to hug and touch their
fathers. One girl noted, “It felt like I just came outta heaven. Because I’m actually faceto-face, no glass, no phones, just actually sitting down, having a conversation, and being
able to kiss him” (p. 24).
Noticeably missing from the Gadsden study was evidence of caregiver resistance
to the family literacy programs. The atypically high level of caregiver support may be
attributed to the non-profit organization’s careful work to reach out to the caregivers.
Also, Gadsden et al. (2005) noted that their sample represented a “special sub-sample of
children of incarcerated parents” (p. 25), since all of the caregivers were the biological
mothers of the children. Further, all of the caregivers voluntarily decided to participate in
the program, indicating their interest in helping their children reconnect with their
incarcerated fathers.
Characteristics of successful programs. The Hudson River Center (2001)
published an instructional guide for prison-based family literacy programs for the State of
New York. The authors argued for flexible program designs and well-developed
implementation strategies that carefully attended to the many potential obstacles that
stem from the complexity of this kind of program. These potential obstacles included the
“day-to-day administration and security of a correctional facility” (p. 12), the logistics of
bringing families and agencies together through literacy events, and the resistance of
some practitioners and participants. The authors noted that, “Respect is important for the
smooth operation in any setting, but particularly so for the highly stressful setting of a
Prison-based Literacy 21
correctional facility…Learners, teachers, correctional officers, administrators, and
families should be allowed to voice their wishes and concerns” (p. 12).
Hudson River Center (2001) identified five components that should be included in
a prison-based family literacy program: (a) literacy-focused instruction, (b) contact
between parents and children, (c) strengths-based parent empowerment/education, (d)
child-care linkages (including linkages with caregivers and community-based service
providers), and (e) connections to post-release support. Further, they recommend:
Programs must be flexible enough to meet the various needs and goals of families.
Services should be adapted to family goals, rather than fitting families into
existing programs. The design should recognize that family strengths, interests,
and needs are not uniform across all families. (p. 14)
Hudson River Center (2001) presented six values or dispositions that characterize
effective prison-based programs: (a) all families have strengths; (b) parents can positively
affect children, even if incarcerated; (c) parents are their children’s primary and most
enduring teachers; (d) parents teach by example, (e) parents have a profound effect on
their children’s success in school; and (f) children benefit from their parent’s
involvement.
Conclusion. This section described some issues related to the ways families
communicate – both outwardly and internally – when they are coping with an
incarcerated parent/spouse/partner. Regarding the issue of privacy, program designers
need to be careful to “first do no harm” when attempting to support these families with
prison-based literacy programs. Further, the Hudson River Center recommended five core
components be included in prison-based family literacy programs. These components
Prison-based Literacy 22
paralleled four core components found in other models of family literacy (DeBruinParecki, Paris & Seidenberg, 1996) and added one additional component that connects
the parent’s learning while incarcerated to continued support after release.
Discussion: Why Prison-Based Family Literacy Programs and Research Need to Expand
The findings from this review pointed to the merits of community-based family
literacy programs. However, prison-based programs, and the families who could benefit
from them, are constrained in ways that are not well understood, despite the limited but
positive findings reported on here. For this reason -- and because the number of families
who might benefit from prison-based family literacy programs is large and growing -- I
argue that these programs need to be rigorously studied on a broader scale. Further,
practitioners should not wait until more research is complete to carefully expand these
programs. Reasons are discussed below.
Prison policy can no longer ignore the needs of the children of prisoners. Prisonbased parenting programs focus on the incarcerated parent but only rarely on their
children. These programs receive only a fraction of the funding that other prison
programs – most notably literacy – receive and serve a much smaller portion of the prison
population. For example, a recent report on Federal prisoners revealed that, on any given
day, approximately two percent of federal prisoners were enrolled in parenting programs,
while 20 percent were enrolled in literacy programs (Federal Bureau of Prisons, 2005).
By integrating parenting with literacy, the number of prisoners reached would expand
ten-fold; this could affect over 25,000 families of federal prisoners alone.
Gadsden et al. (2005) argued that children of prisoners are most readily located
through the prisons that hold their parents and that there is a need for “new alliances
Prison-based Literacy 23
among systems that serve adults and those that serve children. Such systems reside
clearly in correctional settings and in federal and state policy domains” (p. 27).
Adult literacy learners learn more effectively in family literacy programs.
Researchers consistently found that adult literacy learners in community-based family
literacy programs achieved higher gains and higher rates of retention than learners in
traditional literacy programs (McDonald & Scollay, 2002; Padak & Rasinski, 2003;
Ricciuti et al., 2004). In 1992, over one million adults incarcerated in U.S. prisons lacked
a high school diploma or GED (Haigler et al., 1994). Further, many literacy learners in
prison may have deep concerns and unresolved issues relating to their families at home
(Muth, in press). Thus, the potential for prison-based family literacy programs, in terms
of traditional outcomes such as literacy learning and achieving a GED and in terms of
benefits to children and other family members, is great.
Adults leaving prison and their family members are ill-prepared for the reunion.
Findings suggest that parents who reconnect with their families through prison-based
family literacy programs experience lower rates of recidivism (Genisio, 1999;
Northampton Community College, 1995). Though these findings are preliminary and not
rigorously tested, they are consistent with current criminogenic theory that identifies
strong family ties as a predictor of post-release success. Visher and Travis (2003) argued
that “recidivism is directly affected by post-prison reintegration and adjustment, which,
in turn, depends on…personal and situational characteristics, including the individual’s
social environment of peers, family, [and] community…” (p. 89). Hairston (2003) found
evidence that families affect the ways in which prisoners adjust to imprisonment
and their postrelease success….Male prisoners who maintain strong family ties
Prison-based Literacy 24
during imprisonment have higher rates of postrelease success than those who do
not.…Men who assume family roles and responsibilities following incarceration
have lower levels of recidivism than those who do not. (p. 14)
Much has been published about other predictors of post-incarceration success, such as
academic and job skills, but little is known about how prison-based support programs
help families adjust and assimilate returning family members (Gadsden, 2003).
Although community-based family literacy programs have proven merits, we do
not know if, and to what degree, they generalize to prison-based programs. We do not
know enough about the unique needs of children, their incarcerated parents, or the
programs and practitioners that serve them. Numerous theoretical and practical questions
remain, such as: How do prison-based family literacy programs support Parent-and
Child-Together time (PACT) when children are unable to make visits to the prison? Can
prison classrooms engender the trust and respect needed to support successful family
literacy programs? What roles do caregivers play in these programs, and how should their
needs be addressed? How should programs for mothers and fathers differ? How can
prisoners without children benefit from intergenerational literacy programs? When
implementing these programs, how can we “first, do no harm”? For example, how can we
respect children’s privacy needs? These and many more questions need to be carefully
addressed.
Conclusion
Children of incarcerated parents are perhaps the largest unidentified at-risk
population of school age children in the United States. This review of literature suggests
that family literacy programs may have benefit for a large number of incarcerated parents
Prison-based Literacy 25
and their families. But there is much we do not know about the unique literacy and
parenting needs of this population or the complexities of providing programs for them.
For this reason, model prison-based programs are needed. Based on strong findings from
community-based programs, practitioners should not wait until all research questions are
answered. However, practitioners should be careful to do no harm and to approach these
programs in respectful and inclusive ways.
Although most prison-based literacy programs employ traditional academic
curricula, this paper argues for balanced literacy program models that integrate our most
rigorously tested theories of adult literacy instruction with the most promising models of
prison-based family literacy programs. This will require a shift from the traditional
academic and vocational training paradigms currently in practice. But, as the Hudson
River Center (2001) noted, “In preparing for transition back into the community, the
focus for many incarcerated individuals is often employment. A comprehensive family
literacy program suggests that transition back into a family setting is equally important”
(p. 15).
Prison-based Literacy 26
References
Allen, B., & Bosta, D. (1981). Games criminals play: How you can profit by knowing
them. Sacramento, CA: Rea John.
Askov, E. N. (2004). Workforce literacy and technology in family literacy programs. In
B. H. Wasik (Ed.), Handbook of family literacy: Research and practice (pp. 271284). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Askov, E. N., Bechtold, J. M., Toso, B. W., Movit, M., Saenz, E. L., Jones, R., Grinder,
E. L., Kinney, S., & Marvin, M. (2005). Goodling Institute for Research in
Family Literacy: Annotated bibliography. The Pennsylvania State University
College of Education. Retrieved April 29, 2006, from:
http://www.ed.psu.edu/goodlinginstitute/bibliography.htm
Benjamin, L. A., & Lord, J. (Eds.). (1996). Family Literacy: Directions in research and
implications for practice. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education-Office
of Educational Research and Improvement, Office of Vocational and Adult
Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education’s Even Start Program.
Bermudez, A. (1994). Doing our homework: How schools can engage Hispanic
communities. Retrieved August 15, 2006, from:
http://clas.uiuc.edu/fulltext/cl00136/chapter1.html
Bernal, V., Gilmore, L. A., Mellgren, L., Melandez, J., Seleme-McDermott, C., &
Vazquez, L. (2000). Hispanic fathers and family literacy: Strengthening
achievement in Hispanic communities. U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities, & National
Prison-based Literacy 27
Practitioners Network for Fathers and Families. Retrieved August 13, 2003, from
http://www.fatherhood.hhs.gov/hispanic01/index.htm
Bernstein, N. (2005). All alone in the world. Children of the incarcerated. New York:
W. W. Norton.
Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2006). Corrections statistics. U.S. Department of Justice:
Author. Retrieved April 29, 2006 from: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/correct.htm
Caddell, D. (1996, September). Roles, responsibilities and relationships: Engendering
parental involvement. Paper presented at Scottish Educational Research
Association, Dundee, Scotland. Retrieved August 13, 2003, from
http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00001665.htm
Child Welfare League. (2004). Federal resource center for children of prisoners.
Retrieved July 12, 2004, from
http://www.cwla.org/programs/incarcerated/default.htm
Comings, J. P., Parrella, A., & Soricone, L. (1999). Persistence among adult basic
education students in pre-GED classes. Cambridge, MA: National Center for the
Study of Adult Learning and Literacy. Report #12. Retrieved July 12, 2004, from
http://www.gse.harvard.edu/~ncsall/research/reports.htm
Covington, S. S. (2002, January). A woman’s journey home: Challenges for female
offenders and their children. Paper presented at the From Prison to Home
Conference hosted by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and
The Urban Institute, Bethesda, MD. Retrieved April 29, 2006, from:
http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/prison2home02/Covington.htm
Crowther, J., & Tett, L. (1997). Literacies not literacy. Adult Learning, 8, 207–209.
Prison-based Literacy 28
DeBruin-Parecki, A., Paris, S. G., & Seidenberg, J. L. (1996). Characteristics of effective
family literacy programs in Michigan. (NCAL Technical Report TR96-07).
University of Michigan, National Center on Adult Literacy.
Delgado-Gaitan, C. (1990). Literacy for empowerment: The role of parents in children's
education. London: Falmer Press.
Delpit, L. (1988). The Silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating other
people’s children. Harvard Educational Review, 58, 280-290.
Duguid, S. R. (2000). Subjects and objects in modern corrections. Journal of
Correctional Education, 51, 241-255.
Federal Bureau of Prisons. (2005). Key indicator strategic support system. Washington
DC: Federal Bureau of Prisons, Office of Research and Evaluation.
Feiler, A. (2005). Linking home and school literacy in an inner city reception class.
Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 5, 131-149.
Gadsden, V. L. (2002). Current areas of interest in family literacy. In J. Comings, B.
Garner & C. Smith (Eds.), Annual review of adult learning and literacy: Vol. 3.
(pp. 248-287). The National Center for the Study of Adult Learning and Literacy.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Gadsden, V. L. (Ed.). (2003). Heading home: Offender reintegration into the family.
Lanham, MD: American Correctional Association.
Gadsden, V. L., Davis, J. E., Jacobs, C., Edwards, M., LaPoint, V., Muth, W. R. &
Slaughter-Defoe, D. (2005,April). Children of incarcerated parents: The
implications of parent absence for children's lives at school and home. Paper
Prison-based Literacy 29
presented at the meeting of the American Education Research Association,
Montreal.
Genisio, M. H. (1996). Breaking barriers with books: A father's book-sharing program
from prison. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 40, 92-100.
Genisio, M. H. (1999, April). A partnership model: Linking literacy to the needs of
children and their incarcerated fathers. Presented at the Eighth Annual National
Conference on Family Literacy, Louisville, KY.
Gehring, T. (2000). A compendium of material on the pedagogy-andragogy issue.
Journal of Correctional Education, 51, 151-163.
Geraci, P. M. (2000). Reaching out the write way. Journal of Adolescent and Adult
Literacy, 43, 632-634.
Gonnerman, J. (2004). Life on the outside: The prison odyssey of Elaine Bartlett. New
York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Gonzalez, N. E., Moll, L., & Amanti, C. (2005). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing
practices in households and classrooms. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Green, S. (2003). Involving fathers in family literacy: Outcomes and insights from the
fathers reading every day program. Family Literacy Forum, 2, 34-40.
Haigler, K. O., Harlow, C., O'Connor, P., & Campbell, A. (1994). Literacy behind walls:
Profiles of the prison population from the National Adult Literacy Survey.
Washington DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Education Research
and Improvement.
Hairston, C. F. (2002, January). Prisoners and families: Parenting issues during
Incarceration. Paper presented at the From Prison to Home Conference hosted by
Prison-based Literacy 30
the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and The Urban Institute,
Bethesda, MD. Retrieved April 29, 2006, from:
http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/prison2home02/Hairston.htm
Hairston, C. F. (2003). Families, prisoners, and community reentry: A look at issues and
programs. In V. L. Gadsden (Ed.), Heading home: Offender reintegration into the
family (pp. 13-38). Lanham, MD: American Correctional Association.
Hannon, P. (1998, May). Family literacy in a balanced early childhood program. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the International Reading Association,
Orlando, FL.
Hudson River Center (2001). Bringing family literacy to incarcerated settings: An
instructional guide. From incarceration to productive lifestyle. Hudson River
Center for Program Development. Glenmont, NY. Retrieved April 29, 2006,
from:
http://www.hudrivctr.org/documents/flincarc.pdf
Human Rights Watch (2002). Race and incarceration in the United States. Human Rights
Watch Press Backgrounder, February 27, 2002. Retrieved on April 29, 2006 from:
http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/usa/race/
Hutchinson, K. (2000, May). Reframing mothers in family literacy. Paper presented at the
2000 Australian Association for Research in Education. Abstract retrieved
January 12, 2005, from http://www.aare.edu.au/00pap/hut00304.htm
Johnston, D. 1995. Effects of parental incarceration. In C. Gabel & D. Johnston (Eds.)
Children of incarcerated parents, (pp. 59-88). New York: Lexington Books.
Karther, D. (2002). Fathers with low literacy and their young children. The Reading
Teacher, 56, 184-193.
Prison-based Literacy 31
Kruidenier, J. (2002). Research-based principles for adult basic education reading
instruction. Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy.
Literacy Assistance Center (2003). Perspectives on family literacy. New York. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED480836). Retrieved May 2, 2006 from:
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2/content_storage_01/0000000b/
80/23/82/c2.pdf
MacCleod, F. (2004). Literacy identity and agency: Linking classrooms to communities
Early Child Development and Care, 174, 243-252.
Martin, B. A. (1991). Where are the fathers in family literacy? (Final Rep. No. 98-1032).
Bethlehem, PA: Northampton Community College. Retrieved May 2, 2006, from:
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2/content_storage_01/0000000b/
80/21/d6/24.pdf
Mauer, M. (2003). Comparative international rates of incarceration: An examination of
causes and trends. Paper presented to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project. Retrieved April 29, 2006, from:
http://www.sentencingproject.org/pdfs/pub9036.pdf
McDonald, B. A., & Scollay, P. A. (2002, April). The focus on family in adult literacy
improvement. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational
Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
McShane, S. (2005). Applying research in reading instruction for adults: First steps for
teachers. National Institute for Literacy. Retrieved on May 3, 2006, from:
http://www.nifl.gov/partnershipforreading/publications/html/mcshane/index.html
Prison-based Literacy 32
Mezirow. J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. San Francisco: JosseyBass.
Miller, S. F. (2005). Bringing together home and school. Family Literacy Forum, 4, 3-11.
Muth, W. R. (2004). Performance and perspective: Two assessments of federal prisoners
in literacy programs. Doctoral dissertation, George Mason University, 2004.
Dissertation Abstracts International, 65, 06A. (UMI No. AAT 3136247)
Muth, W. R. (2006). Literacy learners in prison: Finding purpose in the ‘second space’.
In P. E. Linder, M. B. Sampson, J. R. Dugan & B. A. Brancato (Eds.), 2005
College Reading Association yearbook: Vol. 27. Building bridges to literacy (pp.
19-34). Commerce: Texas A&M University.
National Center for ESL Literacy in Education. (2002). Family literacy and adult English
language learners. Washington, DC: Office of Vocational and Adult Education.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED461304)
National Center for Family Literacy. (2001). Creating partnerships for learning: Family
literacy in elementary schools. Louisville, KY: Author. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED450946)
Northampton Community College. (1995). When bonds are broken: Family literacy for
incarcerated fathers and their children. Final Report. Year Three. July 1, 1994 June 30, 1995. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED395132) Retrieved
May 2, 2006, from:
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2/content_storage_01/0000000b/
80/26/5e/86.pdf
Prison-based Literacy 33
Padak, N., & Rasinski, T. (2003). Family literacy programs: Who benefits? Ohio
Literacy Resource Center, Kent State University. Retrieved April 29, 2006, from:
http://literacy.kent.edu/Oasis/Pubs/WhoBenefits2003.pdf
Padak, N., & Sapin, C. (2001). Collaboration: Working together to support families.
Columbus, OH: State Department of Education, Division of Career-Technical and
Adult Education. Kent State University, Ohio Literacy Resource Center. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED451404)
Pahl, K., & Kelly, S. (2005). Family literacy as a third space between home and school:
Some case studies of practice. Literacy, 39, 91-96.
Parke, R. D., & Clarke-Stewart, K. A. (2002, January). Effects of parental incarceration
on young children. Paper presented at the From Prison to Home Conference
hosted by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and The Urban
Institute, Bethesda, MD. Retrieved April 29, 2006, from:
http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/prison2home02/parke-stewart.htm
Powell, D. R., & D’Angelo, D. (2000). Guide to improving parenting education in Even
Start family literacy programs. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation.
Purcell-Gates, V., Degener, S. Jacobson, E., & Soler, M. (2000). Affecting change in
literacy practices of adult learners: Impact of two dimensions of instruction
(NCSALL Report No. 17). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Graduate School of
Education.
Ricciuti, A. E., St. Pierre, R. G., Lee, W., & Parsad, A. (2004). Third national Even Start
evaluation: Follow-up findings from the experimental design study. National
Prison-based Literacy 34
Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED484058)
Rose, D. R., & Clear, T. R. (2002, January). Incarceration, reentry, and social capital:
Social networks in the balance. Paper presented at the From Prison to Home
Conference hosted by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and
The Urban Institute, Bethesda, MD. Retrieved April 29, 2006, from:
http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/prison2home02/Rose.htm
Schwartz, W. (1999). Building on existing strengths to increase family. (Digest No. 145).
New York, NY: ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED431064)
Smith, M. C., & Elish-Piper. L. (2002). Primary-grade educators and adult literacy: Some
strategies for assisting low-literate parents. The Reading Teacher, 56, 156-165.
Snow, C. E., & Strucker, J. (2000). Lessons from Preventing Reading Difficulties in
Young Children for adult learning and literacy. In J. Comings, B. Garner & C.
Smith (Eds.), Annual review of adult learning and literacy (Vol. 1, pp. 25-73).
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Stile, S., & Ortiz, R. (1999). A model for involvement of fathers in literacy development
with young at-risk and exceptional children. Early Childhood Education Journal,
26, 221-224.
Strucker, J. (1997). What silent reading tests alone can't tell you: Two case studies in
adult reading differences. Focus on Basics, 1, 13-17.
Tice, C. J. (2000). Enhancing family literacy through collaboration: Program
considerations. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 44, 138-145.
Prison-based Literacy 35
Travis, J., Solomon, A., & Waul, M. (2001). From prison to home: The dimensions and
consequences of prisoner reentry. Urban Institute. Retrieved July 12, 2004, from:
http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/from_prison_to_home.pdf
Visher, C. A., & Travis, J. (2003). Transitions from prison to community: Understanding
individual pathways. Annual Review of Sociology, 29, 89–113
Warner, K. (1998). The “prisoners are people” perspective—and the problems of
promoting learning where this outlook is rejected. The Journal of Correctional
Education, 49, 118-132.
Weinstein, G. (1998). Family and intergenerational literacy in multilingual communities.
(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED421899)
Wright, R. L. (2001). What the students are saying: Literacy as dwelling. The Journal of
Correctional Education, 52, 84-89.