Literacy Behind Bars
Literacy Behind BarsU.S. Department of EducationNCES 2007–473Results From the 2003National Assessment ofAdult Literacy Prison Survey
Literacy Behind BarsResults From the 2003National Assessment ofAdult Literacy Prison SurveyMay 2007U.S. Department of EducationNCES 2007-473Elizabeth GreenbergEric DunleavyMark KutnerAmerican Institutesfor ResearchSheida WhiteProject OfficerNational Center forEducation Statistics
U.S. Department of EducationMargaret SpellingsSecretaryInstitute of Education SciencesGrover J. WhitehurstDirectorNational Center for Education StatisticsMark SchneiderCommissionerThe National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) is the primary federal entity for collecting, analyzing, and reporting datarelated to education in the United States and other nations. It fulfills a congressional mandate to collect, collate, analyze, andreport full and complete statistics on the condition of education in the United States; conduct and publish reports and specialized analyses of the meaning and significance of such statistics; assist state and local education agencies in improvingtheir statistical systems; and review and report on education activities in foreign countries.NCES activities are designed to address high-priority education data needs; provide consistent, reliable, complete, and accurate indicators of education status and trends; and report timely, useful, and high-quality data to the U.S. Department ofEducation, the Congress, the states, other education policymakers, practitioners, data users, and the general public. Unlessspecifically noted, all information contained herein is in the public domain.We strive to make our products available in a variety of formats and in language that is appropriate to a variety of audiences.You, as our customer, are the best judge of our success in communicating information effectively. If you have any commentsor suggestions about this or any other NCES product or report, we would like to hear from you. Please direct your commentsto:National Center for Education StatisticsInstitute of Education SciencesU.S. Department of Education1990 K Street NWWashington, DC 20006–5651May 2007The NCES World Wide Web Home Page address is http://nces.ed.gov.The NCES World Wide Web Electronic Catalog is http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch.Suggested CitationGreenberg, E., Dunleavy, E., and Kutner, M. (2007). Literacy Behind Bars: Results From the 2003 National Assessment of AdultLiteracy Prison Survey (NCES 2007-473). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for EducationStatistics.For ordering information on this report, write to:U.S. Department of EducationED PubsP.O. Box 1398Jessup, MD 20794–1398or call toll free 1–877–4ED–Pubs or order online at http://www.edpubs.org.Content ContactSheida White(202) 502-7473sheida.white@ed.gov
Literacy LevelsExecutive SummaryThe 2003 National Assessment of AdultLiteracy (NAAL) assessed the English literacy of incarcerated adults for the first timesince 1992. The assessment was administered toapproximately 1,200 inmates (ages 16 and older) instate and federal prisons, as well as to approximately18,000 adults (ages 16 and older) living in households. The prison sample is representative of the1,380,000 adults in prison and the household sampleis representative of the 221,020,000 adults in households in 2003.1 The 2003 adult literacy assessmentcovered the same content as the 1992 National AdultLiteracy Survey, and both assessments used the samedefinition of literacy:Changes in the PrisonPopulation and Prisoners'Literacy Between 1992 and2003Comparing the Prison andHousehold PopulationsEducation and Job Training inPrisonWork and Literacy Experiencesin PrisonCriminal History and CurrentOffenseUsing printed and written information to function in society, to achieve one’s goals, and todevelop one’s knowledge and potential.Unlike indirect measures of literacy, which rely onself-reports and other subjective evaluations, theassessment measured literacy directly through taskscompleted by adults.These tasks represent a range ofliteracy activities that adults are likely to face in theirdaily lives. Prison inmates were asked to completethe same tasks as adults living in households.1Householddata collection was conducted from March 2003 throughFebruary 2004; prison data collection was conducted from March throughJuly 2004. Following the precedent set with the 1992 adult literacy assessment, for which data collection also extended into a second year and allprison data collection was conducted during the second year (1993), thisassessment is referred to as the 2003 NAAL throughout this report.iii
Literacy Behind BarsThree types of literacy were measured by the assessment on 0- to 500-point scales:1. Prose literacy. The knowledge and skills neededto search, comprehend, and use informationfrom continuous texts. Prose examples includeeditorials, news stories, brochures, and instructional materials.2. Document literacy.The knowledge and skills needed to search, comprehend, and use informationfrom noncontinuous texts. Document examplesinclude job applications, payroll forms, transportation schedules,maps,tables,and drug or food labels.3. Quantitative literacy. The knowledge and skillsneeded to identify and perform computationsusing numbers that are embedded in printedmaterials. Examples include balancing a checkbook, computing a tip, completing an orderform, or determining the amount of interest ona loan from an advertisement.This report presents the findings from the 2003prison adult literacy assessment. The report includesanalyses that compare the literacy of the U.S. prisonpopulation in 2003 with the literacy of the U.S.prison population in 1992. It also includes analysesthat compare the literacy of the prison and household populations in 2003.The analyses in this reportuse standard t tests to determine statistical significance. Statistical significance is reported at p .05.Literacy LevelsThe Committee on Performance Levels for AdultLiteracy, appointed by the National ResearchCouncil’s Board on Testing and Assessment (BOTA),recommended a set of performance levels for theprose, document, and quantitative scales. Drawing ontheir recommendations, the U.S. Department ofEducation decided to report the assessment results byusing four literacy levels for these scales: Below Basic,Basic, Intermediate, and Proficient.ivBelow Basic indicates that an adult has no more than themost simple and concrete literacy skills. Basic indicatesthat an adult has the skills necessary to perform simpleand everyday literacy activities. Intermediate indicatesthat an adult has the skills necessary to perform moderately challenging literacy activities. Proficient indicatesthat an adult has the skills necessary to perform morecomplex and challenging literacy activities.BOTA’s Committee on Performance Levels for AdultLiteracy also recommended reporting the 2003 resultsby using a separate category: nonliterate in English.Adults were considered to be nonliterate in English ifthey were unable to complete a minimum number ofsimple literacy questions or if they were unable tocommunicate in English or Spanish.Adults who were classified as nonliterate in Englishbecause they could not complete a minimum number of simple literacy questions were generally ableto complete the background questionnaire, whichwas administered orally in either English or Spanish;for reporting purposes, they were included in theBelow Basic literacy level. Adults who were classifiedas nonliterate in English because they were unableto communicate in either English or Spanish couldnot complete the background questionnaire; theyare not included in the analyses in this report, whichrely on background data. Adults who could not betested because of a cognitive or mental disability arealso not included in the analyses in this report, butin the absence of any information about their literacy abilities, they are not considered to be nonliterate in English.Changes in the Prison Population andPrisoners’ Literacy Between 1992 and 2003The rate of incarceration in federal and state prisons inthe United States increased from 332 per 100,000 in1992 to 487 per 100,000 in 2003. (These figures donot include jails.) The prison population was larger,older, and somewhat better educated in 2003 than in
Executive Summaryinmates who spoke only English before startingschool (figure 2-11).1992. The parents of prison inmates were also bettereducated in 2003 than in 1992. The average prose and quantitative literacy ofthe prison population was higher in 2003 thanin 1992. In 2003, some 3 percent of the prisonpopulation was considered to be nonliterate inEnglish (figure 2-1).2Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy was higher for Black3 prison inmates in2003 than in 1992, and average quantitative literacy increased for Hispanic4 inmates. In 2003,White inmates had higher average prose, document, and quantitative literacy than Black andHispanic inmates. Black prison inmates hadhigher average document literacy than Hispanicinmates (figure 2-3).In 2003, a higher percentage of prison inmates thanadults living in households were male, Black, andHispanic, and a higher percentage had been diagnosed with a learning disability. A lower percentageof prison inmates than adults living in householdswere ages 40 or older, and a lower percentage spokea language other than English as children.In 2003, prison inmates’ average prose and quantitative literacy was higher with each increasinglevel of education. For example, inmates with lessthan a high school education had lower averageprose and quantitative literacy than inmates withsome high school (figure 2-5). The average prose and quantitative literacy ofincarcerated men increased between 1992 and2003 (figure 2-7). Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy increased between 1992 and 2003 forprison inmates in the 25 to 39 age group. In2003, incarcerated adults who were 40 years oldor older had lower average prose and documentliteracy than incarcerated adults who were 25 to39 years old (figure 2-9). Comparing the Prison and HouseholdPopulationsAverage prose and quantitative literacyincreased between 1992 and 2003 for prison2 Thedesign of the 1992 assessment did not allow the estimation ofthe size of the population nonliterate in English.3 Black4 All Prison inmates had lower average prose, document, and quantitative literacy than adults livingin households (figure 3-1). Incarcerated White adults had lower averageprose literacy than White adults living in households. Incarcerated Black and Hispanic adultshad higher average prose literacy than Blackand Hispanic adults in households (figure 3-3). Black inmates who had been in prison for ashorter period of time (incarcerated in 2002 orlater) had prose literacy that was not statistically significantly different from that of Blackadults living in households, whereas Blackinmates who had been incarcerated since before2002 had higher average prose literacy thanBlack adults living in households (figure 3-3and table 3-3).5 In general, either prison inmates had loweraverage prose, document, and quantitative literacy than adults living in households with thesame level of highest educational attainment orthere was no statistically significant differencebetween the two groups. The exception wasthat among adults without any high schooleducation, prison inmates had higher averageincludes African American.adults of Hispanic origin are classified as Hispanic, regardless ofrace. Hispanic includes Latino.5The sample size for Hispanic inmates did not allow the separateestimation of literacy by length of incarceration.v
Literacy Behind Barsliteracy on all three scales than adults living inhouseholds (figure 3-5). Both male and female prison inmates had loweraverage literacy on all three scales than adults ofthe same gender living in households (figure 3-9). In every age group examined (16 to 24, 25 to39, and 40 or older), incarcerated adults hadlower average prose, document, and quantitativeliteracy than adults in the same age group livingin households (figure 3-11). Among adults who spoke only English beforestarting school, those who were incarceratedhad lower average prose, document, and quantitative literacy than those who lived in households (figure 3-13).Among adults whose parents were high schoolgraduates or attained postsecondary education,prison inmates had lower average prose, document, and quantitative literacy than thoseadults who lived in households whose parentshad the same level of highest educationalattainment (figure 3-15).Education and Job Training in PrisonEducational and vocational training programs are animportant component of prisons’ rehabilitative purpose. In general, inmates who participated in prisoneducation and training programs had higher averageliteracy than inmates who did not. viForty-three percent of prison inmates hadobtained a high school diploma or a highschool equivalency certificate before the startof their current incarceration. An additional 19percent of prison inmates had earned theirhigh school equivalency certificate duringtheir current incarceration, and 5 percent wereenrolled in academic classes that might eventually lead to a high school equivalency certificate (figure 4-1). Prison inmates with a high school diploma or ahigh school equivalency certificate had higheraverage prose, document, and quantitative literacythan prison inmates with lower levels of education. Inmates who earned their high schoolequivalency certificate during their current incarceration had higher average quantitative literacythan prison inmates who entered prison with ahigh school diploma or a high school equivalency certificate (figure 4-3). Twenty-nine percent of prison inmates hadparticipated in some sort of vocational training.However, more inmates reported being onwaiting lists for these programs than wereenrolled (figures 4-5 and 4-6). Prison inmates who had participated in vocational training had higher average prose, document, and quantitative literacy than prisoninmates who had not participated in any sort ofvocational training program during their current incarceration (figure 4-9). Prison inmates who had received either information technology (IT) certification or someother type of certification recognized by alicensing board or an industry or professionalassociation had higher average prose, document,and quantitative literacy than prison inmateswho did not have the same type of certification.However, prison inmates who had receivedeither type of certification had lower averagelevels of prose, document, and quantitative literacy than adults in the household populationwith similar certifications (figure 4-12).Work and Literacy Experiences in PrisonThe relationship between literacy and participation inprison activities is complex. Inmates who enter prisonwith higher literacy may be more likely to engage insome activities, such as using the library and computers, reading, or even getting certain work assignments.
Executive SummaryParticipating in any of these activities may helpinmates improve their literacy. In general, there was arelationship between literacy and participation inactivities in prison, such that inmates who participated in activities that required some reading or writinghad average literacy that was either higher than or notmeasurably different from the average literacy ofinmates who did not participate in these activities. In 2003, some 68 percent of prison inmates hada work assignment. Prison inmates with workassignments had higher average prose and quantitative literacy than inmates who did not havework assignments (figure 5-1).A higher percentage of inmates with Proficientand Intermediate prose literacy than prisoninmates with Below Basic prose literacy hadprison work assignments that required writingevery day (figure 5-6).A higher percentage of inmates with Basic,Intermediate, and Proficient prose literacy thanwith Below Basic prose literacy used the library.Moreover, prison inmates who used the prisonlibrary had higher average prose literacy thanprison inmates who never used the library (figure 5-9). Prison inmates who used a computer for wordprocessing or for using a CD-ROM had higher average document and quantitative literacythan inmates who never used a computer forthese things (figure 5-10). A higher percentage of prison inmates withProficient than with Below Basic or Basic quantitative literacy used a spreadsheet program (figure 5-13). Prison inmates who read newspapers and magazines, books, or letters and notes had higheraverage prose and document literacy than prisoninmates who never read, regardless of the frequency with which they read. Additionally, ahigher percentage of inmates with Basic orIntermediate than with Below Basic prose literacyread newspapers and magazines, books, and letters and notes every day (figures 5-14 and 5-15).Criminal History and Current OffenseOn average, prison sentences were longer in 2003than in 1992. In both 1992 and 2003, the commission of a violent crime was the most common reasonadults were incarcerated. There was a slight declinebetween 1992 and 2003 in the percentage of inmateswho were imprisoned because of property crimes.Literacy is perhaps of most concern for inmates whoare nearing their expected date of release becausethey will need to find jobs outside of prison. In 2003,some 62 percent of inmates expected to be releasedwithin 2 years. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy was higher in 2003 than in 1992 for prisoninmates who expected to be incarcerated for 10years or longer (figure 6-3). In 2003, there were no statistically significant differences in average prose, document, and quantitative literacy between inmates who expected tobe released within the next 2 years and inmateswith longer amounts of time remaining on theirsentences. However, between 1992 and 2003, thepercentage of inmates who expected to bereleased within the next 2 years and had BelowBasic prose and quantitative literacy did decrease(figures 6-5 and 6-6). In 2003, average prose and quantitative literacywas higher among inmates who had previously been sentenced to both probation and incarceration, and average document literacy washigher among inmates who had previouslybeen sentenced to probation only, than forinmates with the same criminal histories in1992 (figure 6-7).vii
AcknowledgmentsThe National Assessment of Adult Literacy(NAAL) is a complex project whose successful completion is due to the outstandingwork of countless individuals from many organizations. We at the American Institutes for Research(AIR) are extremely grateful and appreciative forhaving the opportunity to work with so many talented and dedicated individuals.We especially wantto thank the staff at the National Center forEducation Statistics who have supported the project, including Peggy Carr, Sheida White (NAALproject officer), Andrew Kolstad, Steven Gorman,William Tirre, and Arnold Goldstein.We also appreciate the input we received fromreport reviewers including Bruce Taylor of theNCES Statistical Standards Program, and membersof the Education Statistics Services Institute staff:Yung Chun, Jaleh Soroui, Linda Schaefer, Jing ChenMatt Adams, Carianne Santagelo, Zeyu Xu, SteveHocker, and Steve Mistler.John Linton, Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools,U.S. Department of Education, and CarolineHarlow, formerly with the Bureau of JusticStatistics, U.S. Department of Justice, played animportant role in the planning, design, and reporting of the NAAL prison study. They also served asreviewers of this report. We are grateful for theirguidance and support. We also very much appreciate the support of the prison staff members andinmates who advised us on the design of this studyix
Literacy Behind Barsand made many suggestions for improving the background questionnaire.Our colleagues at Westat, Inc.—including MarthaBerlin, Michelle Amsbary, Leyla Mohadjer, andJacquie Hogan—planned, developed, and implemented the sampling and weighting plan and alsoplanned and carried out the data collection.Many staff members at AIR, in addition to the reportauthors, made substantial contributions to the prisonliteracy report. We would especially like to thankxJustin Baer, Eugene Johnson, Stephane Baldi, YingJin, Heather Block, Holly Baker, Elizabeth Moore,Rachel Greenberg, and Janan Musa.Thousands of adults in both households and prisonsparticipated in the assessment. Their willingness tospend time answering the background questions andassessment items was essential to ensuring that meaningful data about the literacy of America’s adultscould be obtained. This study would not have beenpossible without their participation.
CONTENTSContentsPageExecutive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iiiAcknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ixList of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiiiList of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xviiiChapter 1: Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1Defining and Measuring Literacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2Interpreting Literacy Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Conducting the Survey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Interpretation of Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Organization of the Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Chapter 2: Changes in the Prison Population and Prisoners’ Literacybetween 1992 and 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11Total Prison Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13Race/Ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14Highest Level of Educational Attainment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20Language Spoken Before Starting School. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22Parents’ Highest Level of Educational Attainment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26Chapter 3: Comparing the Prison and Household Populations. . . . . . . . . . . . . 27Total Prison and Household Populations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29Race/Ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30xi
Literacy Behind BarsPageHighest Level of Educational Attainment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33Gender. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38Age. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39Language Spoken Before Starting School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41Parents’ Highest Level of Educational Attainment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45Chapter 4: Education and Job Training in Prison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47Academic Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48Vocational Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50Skill Certification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56Chapter 5: Work and Literacy Experiences in Prison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57Prison Work Assignments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57Library Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62Computer Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64Reading Frequency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69Chapter 6: Criminal History and Current Offense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71Type of Offense. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72Expected Length of Incarceration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75Expected Date of Release . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77Previous Criminal History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81Appendix A: Sample Assessment Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .83Appendix B: Definitions of All Subpopulations and Background Variables Reported . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .93Appendix C: Technical Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .99Appendix D: Estimates and Standard Errors for Tables and Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .107xii
ContentsList of D2-10.D2-11.D2-12.PageCorrelations among the prose, document, and quantitative scales for the prison population: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2Correlations among the prose, document, and quantitative scales for the household population: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Overview of the literacy levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
a language other than English as children. Prison inmates had lower average prose, docu-ment,and quantitative literacy than adults living in households (figure 3-1). Incarcerated White adults had lower average prose literacy than White adults living in house-holds. Incarcerated Black and Hispanic adults had higher average prose literacy than Black
Behaviorally Anchored Rating Scales (BARS) BARS-Introduction Definition How BARS are developed Sample BARS Rater Training Inter-Rater Reliability. BARS Definition . Place in intervals on scale 8. Final form Handout (Step 5 sample) Handout (Step 8 samples) Sample ScenarioFile Size: 1MBPage Count: 13Explore furtherBehaviorally Anchored Rating Scale (BARS) Meaning, Steps .www.mbaskool.comBehaviorally Anchored Rating Scales - HR Letter Formatswww.yourhrworld.comBehind BARS: Evaluating Employees with Behaviorally .www.dummies.comWhat is a Behaviourally Anchored Rating Scale (BARS)? HRZonewww.hrzone.comBehaviorally Anchored Rating Scale (BARS): Benefits and .www.bryq.comRecommended to you based on what's popular Feedback
Traditionally, Literacy means the ability to read and write. But there seems to be various types of literacy. Such as audiovisual literacy, print literacy, computer literacy, media literacy, web literacy, technical literacy, functional literacy, library literacy and information literacy etc. Nominal and active literacy too focuses on
2.4 Kase Bars, Kase Xrange or Other Range Type Charts Some charting platforms allows users to also plot range type bars, Kase Bars, or Kase Xrange bars. Range bars are unique in that they are plotted based upon price moment rather than time or volume. Kase recommends these types of bars for intraday charts. There are a number of ways to
Suction Cup Grab Bars 3 Part No 1167459 4 Usage 4.1 Installing the Grab Bar WARNING: Risk of Falling. Damaged grab bars may not adhere to the wall properly. DO NOT install grab bars if damage is found. Grab bars may not get adequate suction to adhere to the wall. DO NOT install grab bars directly onto grout lines or gaps in the wall .
Part VII. LIteracy 509 Chapter 16. A Primer on Literacy Assessment 511 Language Disorders and Literacy Problems 512 Emergent Literacy 514 Emergent Literacy Skill Acquisition 516 Assessment of Emergent Literacy Skills 520 Assessment of Reading and Writing 528 Integrated Language and Literacy Skill Assessment 536 Chapter Summary 537
the marimba or xylophone if needed. 1. Place the bars upside-down on a table. With the white tone bars (F-F), put the low bars to the right side. With the black notes (F#-D#), position the low bars to the left side. 2. Mark a line on the bars corresponding to how the string would be threaded. Make
Time Pink Floyd 1973 INTRO (shortened !!!) [D] (4 bars)[Em] (4 bars)– 3 times.[G] (4 bars) [D] (4 bars) [Em] (4 bars) Verse 1 [Em] Ticking away the moments that make up a [G] dull day You [D] fritter and waste the hours in an offhand [Em] way [Em] Kicking around on a piece of ground in your [G] hometown [D] Waiting for someone or something to show you the [Em] way
range. bars pitch. frame length. low end high end. height range. 4.3 oct a2-c7. voyager 90 cm. 40 cm 85-105 cm. mspv43. range. bars pitch. frame length. low end high end. height range. 3 oct c3-c6. padouk 58-40mm voyager. 137 cm 75 cm. 46 cm 75-95 cm. mspvj30. mckv43 zelon synthetic bars. mcpv43 padouk bars mchv43 rosewood bars.
