In this study, I answer the research question: which aspects of experiential education should be prioritized for individuals in jails versus prisons to make programming the most effective for those in the United States correctional system? While research has been done on the efficacy of prison programming generally, little research has been done on experiential programming in both jails and prisons. Current programming has the potential to be easily tailored to experiential programming, which has been shown to have vastly positive benefits. Thus, analyzing which factors within experiential programming are likely to have the greatest benefit on individuals may help improve key metrics such as recidivism rates. Through my comparative case study, I explore the factors that should be prioritized in experiential programming via interviews with 15 program administrators, academics, and experts in the field. I use the qualitative coding software Dedoose to organize my interview transcriptions into overarching themes and sub-themes to analyze the interview data and produce my findings. I find that experiential programming in prisons should prioritize a continuum of care and put an emphasis on empowerment, while experiential programming in jails should be shorter-term and emphasize healing. In both prisons and jails, programming that develops a sense of human connection and personalized care, specifically via mentor figures and trusted peers with similar life experiences, is most important. My policy recommendations regarding what experiential correctional programs should prioritize directly mirror my findings, as outlined above. By making small strategic changes to pre-existing programming, higher degrees of program effectiveness including a more stable return to society for those who have experienced incarceration are possible at minimal cost.
Bokyoung Kim (2022) studied this question.