Through the Eyes of the Students

In June, 2007 a team of seven researchers visited PUP math and English courses and interviewed 42 students. The following is a synthesis of these interviews.

Benefits of the Program

Overwhelmingly the men saw the program as highly beneficial and in some cases transformative. Its most significant impact appeared to be in the socio-emotional arena and on the “quality of life” they were experiencing in prison. Of particular importance was how it helped them feel that they were accomplishing something and not just wasting time. For many it had a significant impact on their self esteem, showing them that they could meet a challenge and achieve goals that they initially saw as impossible dreams. Some credited this change in turning them from bitterness and reactivity toward a positive goal orientation.

Others valued the courses primarily for the intellectual stimulation and the escape from boredom and the pervasive negative environment surrounding them. They appreciated the chance to be with other prisoners and PUP staff who were committed to doing something positive with their lives. Prisoners cited the PUP classrooms as the only place where they were safe, respected and where men easily interacted across racial lines. Some noted that the cross-racial alliances fostered inside the program served to diffuse potentially explosive situations on the yard.

While all of the men interviewed cited the immediate in-prison benefits of PUP, many also spoke to the benefits it provided for current or future relationships outside of San Quentin. Striking in this area was the impact many cited on their family relationships. Some credited the program with enabling them to proactively engage with their children. As one man stated, his coursework gave him something positive and substantive to discuss with his teenage children and a way to encourage them in their own education. For others, it provided a way to reconnect with children, spouses or parents and provide hope for life after prison. In addition to the family connections, many spoke directly about how the program was preparing them for work or to continue their studies in pursuit of a BA after release. For some the program had inspired career or volunteer goals involving social service and giving back to the community.

The Most Beneficial Aspects of the Program

Virtually every man interviewed spoke of the personal connections he had made with the instructors and volunteers – their high expectations, respectfulness, and dedication. A number noted how different it was to know that staff members were volunteering their time and not just doing a job – and that it inspired the men to increase their commitment. Exemplifying and magnifying the importance of connection was the relationship they felt with Jody and the esteem in which they held her. These personal relationships set PUP apart from correspondence or TV courses and were credited by the men as keeping them going despite a variety of personal and institutional challenges.

In terms of specific methodologies, the many of the students credited the one-on-one classroom and tutoring support and flexible pacing of the courses as allowing them to get through material that otherwise would have been too difficult. Similarly, the ability of teachers to answer questions and break things into manageable chunks was seen as very helpful.

Issues Impacting the Success of the Program

There was wide consensus among the men that the major issues related to PUP were institutional. Foremost among these was the lack of classroom space resulting in the limited availability of classes. Whether is was because of the length of time it took to get their degree, the lack of diversity in course offerings, or the simple fact that they wanted to take more classes, the men expressed great frustration with the constrained course offerings. Other institutional problems were also raised, but without the same intensity. In descending order these included: noise and poor study environment in the dorms; lack of support from some prison staff including deliberate attempts to keep men from class; work schedules and the inability of classes to serve as an alternative to work; and the physical environment, materials and lack of technology in PUP classrooms. A number of men also cited problems in relation to the scheduling of courses due to parole, transfer and other prison movements.

While there was overwhelming concern with the institutional problems constraining the Patten Program, the men also raised a number of issues directly related to the program itself. Most significant was the need for more skills among some instructors to deal with the academic needs of struggling students. This was particularly true in introductory classes and for students with weak academic backgrounds or learning disabilities. The men also wished that the program could provide more counseling or support for men who were struggling with issues inside or outside of the prison that distracted them from their studies. In a similar vein, some suggested better academic counseling / diagnosis going into the program or in preparation for parole and continuing their education on the outside.

Some men also felt that a few instructors allowed themselves to be intimidated by prisoners and backed down, not holding the students to high standards. They felt others had trouble establishing relationships with men who had very little contact with women. And finally, some instructors got in to power struggles or had communication issues. While interaction issues were cited infrequently, they were particularly mentioned in terms of some of the younger women. One student also commented that too many of the instructors assumed that the men needed all the content to be political or highly emotional simply because they were prisoners.

Summary

While the sample of interviews was small, the consensus regarding the Prison University Program’s greatest benefits and challenges was strong. It paints a clear picture of value add and identifies a number of intervention points that could significantly increase the impact of the program.

Dr. Louise Bay Waters 9/15/07

Researchers: Amy Epstein, Dr. Derek Mitchell, Susan Portugal, Dr. Malika Starr, Dr. June Rimmer, Ryan Waters