Literacy and Behaviour: the Prison Reading Survey a Dissertation Submitted for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

UK Data Archive SN 4359 - The Prison Reading Survey, 1997 Literacy and Behaviour : The Prison Reading Survey A dissertation submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy MICHAEL EDWARD RICE Darwin College & Institute of Criminology University of Cambridge FEBRUARY 1999 Literacy and Behaviour: The Prison Reading Survey A dissertation submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Michael Edward Rice Darwin College and Institute of Criminology University of Cambridge REVISED 28 February 2000 Summary There is a widespread belief that literacy levels among offenders are lower than those in the general population. A frequently-associated belief is that if their reading problems were to be addressed, then offenders would abandon antisocial ways and pursue law-abiding careers. This study investigates the basis for these beliefs by assessing the prevalence of reading problems in a randomised sample of 203 adult male offenders serving custodial sentences in a representative selection of seven prisons across the range of security classifications in England and Wales. It enquires into the diversity and likely causes or exacerbating circumstances of offenders’ reading problems, using a structured interview with assessments of verbal and non-verbal ability, receptive syntax, social cognition, and self-reported behaviours associated with childhood attention-deficit and hyperactivity; and it considers the hypothesis that developmental dyslexia is a disproportionate cause of these problems. The study also reviews the development and pervasiveness of historical accounts of the association between literacy and behaviour. Although functional literacy levels in the sample were found to be low in relation to the general population as a whole, they did not differ significantly from the general population when social disadvantage was taken into account. While many participants showed imperfect mastery of the alphabetic principle, the pattern of deficits in reading-related subskills suggested that, in a transactional explanatory model, greater importance should be attached to environmental than to constitutional causes. In a probabilistic analysis, the prevalence of developmental dyslexia in the sample appeared to be within the range likely to occur by chance. The study thus found no support for the hypotheses that developmental dyslexia might be a disproportionate cause of offenders’ reading problems or that it might constitute an independent risk for criminal conviction. III The Prison Reading Survey and its Methods Introduction Purpose The purpose of the survey was to assess the levels of functional literacy in the adult male prison population, to determine the extent of key sub-skill deficits in literacy, and to explore hypotheses about the causes of those deficits. Background Two widely-held beliefs formed the background to the survey. The first belief was that low literacy constitutes an additional impairment to the prospect of employment on release and that the risk of recidivism might be reduced by educational interventions. Research was needed to establish the extent of any problem before interventions could be planned. A related belief was that low literacy in general, and specific reading disability in particular, constitute significant risk factors for criminality, even after other risk factors are taken into account. Research was needed to assess the support for these beliefs, which have been more fully discussed in the introductory chapters. Research Questions The principal research questions were: • What percentage of the sample is functionally illiterate (or low-literate)? • What percentage of the sample has specific reading difficulties? • What percentage of the sample had low impulse control or attentional problems in childhood? • What percentage of the sample has difficulties with social cognition involving theory of mind? 1 • What percentage of the sample has tic disorders? • What percentage of the sample experienced material, emotional, or educational disadvantage in childhood? • Which deficits are likely to be caused by neuropsychological abnormality, and what patterns of comorbidity link them? • Which deficits cannot plausibly be explained partly or wholly by neuropsychological abnormalities, and what alternative explanations can be proposed? Hypotheses A number of hypotheses and alternative hypotheses were prompted by previous studies and beliefs held by members of dyslexia advocacy groups. a) Neither low-literate nor dyslexic prisoners (two overlapping categories) differ from the rest of the sample on measures of childhood socio-economic disadvantage; alternatively, dyslexics have lower scores than the remainder. b) Neither low-literate nor dyslexic prisoners differ from the rest of the sample on measures of educational attainment; alternatively, both low-literates and dyslexics have lower levels of educational attainment than functionally literate members of the sample. c) Neither low-literate nor dyslexic prisoners differ from the rest of the sample on measures of family structure in childhood; alternatively, both groups are less likely to have grown up with both natural parents and fewer than three siblings. d) Neither low-literate nor dyslexic prisoners differ from the rest of the sample on measures of personal independence in adulthood; alternatively, dyslexics are more likely to have attained independence and autonomy. 2 e) Neither low-literate nor dyslexic prisoners differ from the rest of the sample on measures of inter-generational socio-economic mobility; alternatively, dyslexics are more likely to show evidence of inter-generational downward socio-economic mobility. f) Neither low-literate nor dyslexic prisoners differ from the rest of the sample on reports of peer-group assimilation in childhood; alternatively, dyslexics are more likely to have been marginalised by their childhood peers. g) Neither low-literate nor dyslexic prisoners differ from the rest of the sample on reports of adult experience in employment; alternatively, dyslexics are more likely to have been unemployed when they were arrested, less likely to have had any job responsibility, and to have been in their most recent job for a shorter time. h) Neither low-literate nor dyslexic prisoners differ from the rest of the sample on a measure of fluid intelligence; alternatively, dyslexics do better on a measure of fluid intelligence. i) Neither low-literate nor dyslexic prisoners differ from the rest of the sample on measures of impediment to successful learning at school; alternatively, dyslexics are more likely to have had normal eyesight and hearing and better attendance records. j) Neither low-literate nor dyslexic prisoners differ from the rest of the sample on measures of physical co-ordination; alternatively, dyslexics but not low-literates are less likely to be able to swim, drive motor vehicles, or play games requiring good hand-eye co- ordination. k) Neither low-literate nor dyslexic prisoners differ from the rest of the sample on a measure of alcoholism. 3 l) Neither low-literate nor dyslexic prisoners differ from the rest of the sample on measures of their use of writing; alternatively, both groups use writing less. m) Neither low-literate nor dyslexic prisoners differ from the rest of the sample on reports of the emotional climate of the childhood home or, alternatively, dyslexics have more experience of depression and less experience of attachment. n) Neither low-literate nor dyslexic prisoners differ from the rest of the sample on reports of parental discipline and control. o) Neither low-literate nor dyslexic prisoners differ from the rest of the sample on measures of literacy in the home; alternatively, both groups are lower on these measures. p) Neither low-literate nor dyslexic prisoners differ from the rest of the sample on reports of reading, writing, and spelling problems among first-degree relatives; alternatively, dyslexics report more familial literacy problems. q) Neither low-literate nor dyslexic prisoners differ from the rest of the sample on measures of childhood aggression; alternatively, dyslexics report more childhood aggression. r) Neither low-literate nor dyslexic prisoners differ from the rest of the sample on measures of family criminality; alternatively, dyslexics are less likely than non-dyslexics to have convicted and imprisoned relations. s) Neither low-literate nor dyslexic prisoners differ from the rest of the sample on reports of depression among family members; alternatively, dyslexics report more depression. 4 t) Neither low-literate nor dyslexic prisoners differ from the rest of the sample on measures of discontinuity in schooling; alternatively, low-literates but not dyslexics will report greater discontinuity. u) Neither low-literate nor dyslexic prisoners differ from the rest of the sample on reports of school response to their difficulties in learning to read; alternatively, dyslexics will report a greater response insofar as it corresponds to higher parental socio-economic status. v) Neither low-literate nor dyslexic prisoners differ from the rest of the sample on measures of attachment to school; alternatively, both groups will show less attachment to school. w) Neither low-literate nor dyslexic prisoners differ from the rest of the sample with respect to their age at first conviction; alternatively, low literates but not dyslexics will be younger than their comparison group at first conviction. x) Neither low-literate nor dyslexic prisoners differ from the rest of the sample on reports

Load more