Educational funding - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Nov 3, 2005

Educational funding

Date: Nov 3, 2005

Economist wrote:

... All of the criminals released can enroll in educational programs,learn valuable skills,get good jobs,and become solid taxpaying citizens. ...

But will we have that many CEO and CFO positions open for these people to fill?

Date: Nov 3, 2005

Economist wrote:

Here's a possible solution to the educational funding crisis. We can take the money being spent on prisons and can instead use it to fund education. All of the criminals released can enroll in educational programs,learn valuable skills,get good jobs,and become solid taxpaying citizens. Many more resources will be available for current students and as a result they will be well educated and have little need to turn to crime. It's a win-win solution.

I think that's a great idea. We could also take the money freed up from needing less law enforcement and put that into education.

Date: Nov 4, 2005

Any country that spends more on prisons than on education should be ashamed.

Date: Nov 4, 2005

I forget the actual amount that's often cited, but there's an old adage that "X dollars spent on education now saves Y dollars needed for prisons later."

The main problem with prison "education" programs is that they seldom train inmates for occupations that pay as well as they were making, say, selling cocaine.

Date: Nov 4, 2005

From reading many of the posts on this topic I came away with the idea that posters were saying that individuals break the law because they do not have sufficient education. Historically, 50 years ago individuals in this country were less educated on average than today. As education funding has increased and the percentage of the population graduating from high school has increased, crime has gone up. Can anyone explain this inverse relationship and how transferring money from prisons to education will reduce crime.

I assume that those advocating the substitution will volunteer to teach rapists, thieves, and killers in their classrooms.

Date: Nov 4, 2005

Cossack wrote:

As education funding has increased and the percentage of the population graduating from high school has increased, crime has gone up.

You are not saying there is a causal relationship, but a careless reader might not notice.

Television? Drugs? Internet? Social Security? Inflation? Welfare? Wal-Mart? Integration? Organized Youth Sports? Interstate Highways? Firearms? Immigration? Birth Control? Pornography? Population explosion? Acquisitions and takeovers? Rampant litigation?

Maybe that was your point.

Date: Nov 4, 2005

Cossack wrote:

From reading many of the posts on this topic I came away with the idea that posters were saying that individuals break the law because they do not have sufficient education. Historically, 50 years ago individuals in this country were less educated on average than today. As education funding has increased and the percentage of the population graduating from high school has increased, crime has gone up. Can anyone explain this inverse relationship and how transferring money from prisons to education will reduce crime. I assume that those advocating the substitution will volunteer to teach rapists, thieves, and killers in their classrooms.

I think your first sentence is correct: lots of us believe that individuals who have better educations tend not to live in prisons. But you shifted your focus from individuals to the entire population after your first sentence.

There may be a lot of reasons why "crime has gone up" throughout the entire population, including those listed by post hoc. Another reason might be that we have decided to "get tough on crime" and have instituted "three strikes, you're out" laws and other strategies that have visceral appeal and that may or may not actually deter crime. One thing for sure, they do fill up prisons.

Is anyone seriously advocating the plan to which you refer. The initial post in this thread sounded like provocation or satire to me. But don't we have "rapists, thieves, and killers" in the classroom already?

Date: Nov 4, 2005

"Is anyone seriously advocating the plan to which you refer. The initial post in this thread sounded like provocation or satire to me. But don't we have "rapists, thieves, and killers" in the classroom already?"

I hope you are not referring to faculty with this statement.

To take a more serious approach to the underlying questions, the relationship between crime and money for education, it is incumbent on anyone who suggests that more money for education reduces crime to describe the link between them in detail. So far I have seen only assertions.

Criminal behavior is the worst form of anti social behavior and occurs in most, if not all, societies. Different societies deal with it in various ways, but centuries of experience verify the importance of harsh punishment for such behavior. You cannot bribe antisocial people to behave nor can you talk them into acceptable behavior. It takes harsh and swift negative consequences with consistency to alter this behavior. If the posters wishing to spend money on criminals to educate them by subjecting them to these negative consequences while increasing their work skills, I would be sympathetic to their suggestions. If they are pushing to bring more antisocial people into the traditional education mode, I would object. Moreover, those suggesting it would not want their children in the same school. They would move to another school system or send their children to a private school.

Date: Nov 4, 2005

Cossack wrote:

it is incumbent on anyone who suggests that more money for education reduces crime to describe the link between them in detail. So far I have seen only assertions.

Here are several: studies

Can you cite a study to the contrary?

In general (meaning: not directed at you, Mr. C.)-- why is it that increasing funding for prisons is "getting tough on crime" and therefore good, but increasing funding to education is "throwing money at the problem" and therefore bad? I'm serisously posing the quastion-- can anyone cite a study showing that increasing funding to education doesn't result in savings?

Date: Nov 4, 2005

Cossack wrote:

"Is anyone seriously advocating the plan to which you refer. The initial post in this thread sounded like provocation or satire to me. But don't we have "rapists, thieves, and killers" in the classroom already?" I hope you are not referring to faculty with this statement. To take a more serious approach to the underlying questions, the relationship between crime and money for education, it is incumbent on anyone who suggests that more money for education reduces crime to describe the link between them in detail. So far I have seen only assertions. Criminal behavior is the worst form of anti social behavior and occurs in most, if not all, societies. Different societies deal with it in various ways, but centuries of experience verify the importance of harsh punishment for such behavior. You cannot bribe antisocial people to behave nor can you talk them into acceptable behavior. It takes harsh and swift negative consequences with consistency to alter this behavior. If the posters wishing to spend money on criminals to educate them by subjecting them to these negative consequences while increasing their work skills, I would be sympathetic to their suggestions. If they are pushing to bring more antisocial people into the traditional education mode, I would object. Moreover, those suggesting it would not want their children in the same school. They would move to another school system or send their children to a private school.

Cossack, I thought all that was being said was the people in prison are usually less educated. The question of the relation between education and money is more complicated. Even though we have a larger percentage of the population attending high school and college we have strong evidence the level and quality of their education is in decline. Having a high school degree doesn't mean as much as it did years ago. That is why, I believe, we don't see a correlation over the whole population between the money spent on education and the crime rate.

Date: Nov 4, 2005

Cossack, left ASAP, et al.

Forensic psychology is one of my areas of interest (I've published a bit on antisocial PD as well as neurotransmitter defenses and criminal responsibility). You all start with a faulty assumption--that crime rates are dramatically up. In fact, many categories of crime, including violent crime, are at fairly low levels historically (per capita, of course). Like environmental warming and hurricance patterns, one needs to take a long term look to discern even modestly interesting correlates and patterns. If you have spare time, look at the BJS website for some summary data over the past 70-100 years.

What is sad about Mississippi is that the "truth in sentencing" fad (the old Nelson the Rock, storm Attica, bit) hit our legislators late, just as the crime rate nationally was starting its most recent down-swing. In about a decade, at the same time, we have almost tripled state spending (give or take a bit) on our penal system here.

Good research on the effects of education and treatment on criminal recidivism are few, but do exist (that is, supplying HS and college experiences, as well as good D&A treatment, to inmates), especially since the last few decades have seen a shift from a part-rehabilitation model to a greater emphasis on deterrence (including general deterrence) and punitive models. What is interesting is that the public's attitudes are pretty malleable but largely unrelated to actual crime rates (see the large flip flop in survey data on the death penalty from 1960-present). The data also do strongly suggest that providing educational and mental health resources to inmates reduces recidivism rates (the best research I have seen recently is coming from a team in Virginia). Notice I didn't say eliminates recidivism. But recidivism has significant personal (to victims), social, and economic costs, so even modest effects are worthy of note.

Date: Nov 4, 2005

Mitch makes some good points, particular in regard to overall crime rates and recidivism. It is important to note that the level of crime varies greatly across cities and localities. Some cities with high crime levels also spend large sums on education. However, that does not mean that higher amounts spent on education leads to higher crime. There are many more factors involved in criminal activity than lack of or no lack of education. One is the size of the age cohort, a factor in the fall of overall crime rates that Mitch mentioned. Much of the criminal activity is a young man's game and if that age group is smaller relative to the population, the crime level will fall. One predictor of recidivism is the age of person when they leave prison. The initial post on this topic was to take money spent on prisons and spend it on education suggesting that there was a direct link between increased spending on all education and a reduction in crime. No evidence has been presented that supports a direct link between the two. Such a transfer could lead to a class of criminals that are more highly educated, but I doubt it.

Date: Nov 4, 2005

Cossack wrote:

No evidence has been presented that supports a direct link between the two.

Well, you ignored my previous post, and perhaps you will ignore this as well. Nonetheless, I suggest this site. (

Date: Nov 4, 2005

OK points to studies that show early intervention from pre kindergarten through grade school keeps many children from engaging in criminal behavior in the future. I would not object to funding programs that are targeted to change behavior and provide guidance. These programs provide, what traditionally has been the responsibility of parents and family, in situations where parents are incapable or derelict. It is successful primarily because it intervenes early in the child's life. Note that supporting pre kindergarten programs focusing on children at risk is not the same as what was suggested in the original post where money was moved from prisons to education. Note also that even with the extra help from early intervention problems, many of these children go on to engage in criminal behavioral. When they do, I think most citizens feel comfortable with having them in prison so that the criminal does not prey on the weak, old, or helpless in society.

Date: Nov 4, 2005

When they do, I think most citizens feel comfortable with having them in prison so that the criminal does not prey on the weak, old, or helpless in society.

I am enjoying all these posts. Let's assume that there is a r = .00 association between education spending and criminality. But then look at this from another perspective (I know this wasn't the original point of the thread-apologies in advance). There is no compelling evidence that the large increase in incarceration and penal spending in the past 10 years in the US has produced a proportional reducation in crime rates (taking a long term view of the relation). I don't have the exact figures in hand, but we have INCREASED (cap apology) penal spending in MS by well over 100 million per year in that time, and have DECREASED spending in higher ed across the state by some equally monstrous number. Given that the pot is limited, can we justify, in terms of benefits to society, this shifting of resources? We are not substantially safer by means of this re-allocation. Can we argue that these cuts had no effect on higher ed here? (I hope not.)

Another assumption-that criminals prey on the weak or helpless in society. Most homicides occur between people who are acquainted before the crime (including gang shootings and "crimes of passion"). Many such crimes are drug or alcohol related. Also, the state pen is populated by many addicts who committed crimes against fellow addicts, and also by low level "white collar" criminals.

I agree that there are many truly bad people in prison, or jail awaiting trial or serving short state sentences, who are as you describe (I had my fill working with the worst of the worst sex offenders on parole), but there are a whole bunch who are non-violent folks with awful judgment and decision making skills and few resources. Many have a mental illness. The Reagan era closing of state hospitals, combined with the development of new classes of psychiatric meds and the community mental health movement, was followed by an increased rate of psychiatric illnesses in inmates. Underfunded and understaffed CMHCs are the last line of defense in keeping these folks out of jail. Throwing money at prisons with the intent of locking 'em up and throwing away the key is penny wise and pound foolish. Most of these folks will hit the streets at some point (usually sooner than later). I would rather they receive D&A treatment, some level of education, reasonable resources for transitional living, and monitoring (however, parole and probation are unfashionable to fund these days) before they are released into my community. Any polictician in MS, however, would be nuts to say this out loud. A few brave judges here are implementing diversionary D&A programs ("drug courts"), but few folks talk about programmatic and intensive rehab opportunities during incarceration or resources and monitoring post release.

The impact on overall recidivism rates will be modest, so why do it? The reason is that even modest reductions in recidivism can have a significant impact on the number of folks victimized. When working with sex offenders, the results can be disheartening. For example, if intervention (treatment and monitoring) reduces the 5 year recidivism rate post release from 10 percent to 5 percent, is this worthwhile? The answer is yes, because each offender usually has many, many victims in his career (for exhibitionists or pedophiles, the acts can number in the hundreds). Even a small reduction in recidivism can therefore be important.

I know that this is off the original topic a bit, so my apologies...

Date: Nov 5, 2005

The augments about funding education versus funding crime prevention have not focused on the issue that is crucial to both education and crime. Both activities have what is know as externalities, effects over and above their initial effect. Education, assuming it correspond to knowledge, has positive externalities for society and for the localities where it occurs. Crime has negative externalities for society and for localities. Unfortunately, they are not offsetting externalities such that the positive education externality will offset the crime externality.

The externality of education is not limited to the locality in which it occurs because it has market value and educated people are mobile. The externality of crime is much more localized since it is not desirable and people build defenses against it by moving to non-crime areas. If crime can be localized, the negative externalities on citizens are limited to those residing in that area. Crime becomes a more important issue when it escapes from the local boundaries and infringes on other areas. Once people decide that the criminal justice system and law enforcement are not reducing the crime back to "normal" they move. Many major cities have struggled with this issue. Some cities have won, some have held their own (New York) and many have lost the battle. Gary Indiana and Newark New Jersey are examples. Crime drives out capital and reinvestment does not occur.

Mitch points out (accurately) that a large number of homicides occur between acquaintances and that robberies often are the result of drugs. Often, the two go together. The homicide issue is a more complex criminal issue since it is much more emotion based, particularly when the victim and killer know each other. While residents are never happy about murder in their neighborhood, it is the constant petty crime and robberies that motivate people to leave. Once people with resources and human capital leave, there is no reinvestment in the area.

A final point that has not been addressed is that the provision to maintain law and order has been vested in government for centuries. Although there are private police forces, they usually are a signal of low quality government policing. The financing of education by government is quite recent in comparison. While the outcome of government financed education has been very positive, it was not one of the fundamental functions of government. Thus, one can make a legitimate argument that protecting citizens from lawbreakers has a higher priority then education. This especially true when the lack of law and order in many parts of this nation contributes greatly to the low level of education that exists in these same areas.

Date: Nov 5, 2005

It's good to see the board back to grappling with substantive educational issues like this, giving the lie to many of the complaints made about it heretofore.

Date: Nov 5, 2005

Recidivism is my new word for the week.

Date: Nov 5, 2005

Cossack wrote:

As education funding has increased and the percentage of the population graduating from high school has increased, crime has gone up. Can anyone explain this inverse relationship and how transferring money from prisons to education will reduce crime.

Actually, Cossack, you didn't do your homework on this one. The number of crimes may have increased in recent years, but so has the general population. What is important isn't the number of crimes but the number of crimes per capita population (i.e., crime rate). It turns out that the increase in the number of crimes hasn't quite kept up with the increase in the population. That means that the crime rate has declined. And it's been declining for years.

Violent crime rates have declined since 1994, reaching the lowest level ever recorded in 2004. (This is the most recent year included in the Department of Justice study.) From 1995 to 2004 the rate for violent crimes fell 32.0%.

After declining for many years, property crime rates stabilized after 2002. From 1995 to 2004, the rate for property crimes fell 23.4%.

You are correct in that there is an inverse relationship between education funding & crime rate: as education funding increases, crime rate decreases. Of course, that's a big fat post hoc, ergo propter hoc, but I have the numbers to back it up. You don't.

I trust you do not demand that your students present "informed opinions" in class or at least that you don't grade off when they don't provide support for their assertions.

Date: Nov 5, 2005

Invictus wrote:

You are correct in that there is an inverse relationship between education funding & crime rate: as education funding increases, crime rate decreases. Of course, that's a big fat post hoc, ergo propter hoc, but I have the numbers to back it up. You don't.

I'm not sure that I believe these numbers. But assuming they are valid, might the drop in violent crime be a consequence of the fact that so many criminals are in jail?

Date: Nov 5, 2005

Mr. Wizard wrote:

I'm not sure that I believe these numbers. But assuming they are valid, might the drop in violent crime be a consequence of the fact that so many criminals are in jail?

Or is it that them Boomer Criminals is gettin old like the rest of us?

Date: Nov 6, 2005

This is liberalism at its best : we're spending more on education and the crime rate is going down,let's spend even more. The reason crime is decreasing is because more criminals are being locked up. Successful programs, like the three strikes and you're out, have placed many of the habitual offenders behind bars. These folks are sociopaths and would be criminals no matter what. The message; MONEY SPENT ON PRISONS IS GOOD,IT SAVES LIVES.

Date: Nov 6, 2005

ok wrote:

Cossack wrote:
it is incumbent on anyone who suggests that more money for education reduces crime to describe the link between them in detail. So far I have seen only assertions.

Here are several: studies

Can you cite a study to the contrary?

In general (meaning: not directed at you, Mr. C.)-- why is it that increasing funding for prisons is "getting tough on crime" and therefore good, but increasing funding to education is "throwing money at the problem" and therefore bad? I'm serisously posing the quastion-- can anyone cite a study showing that increasing funding to education doesn't result in savings?

This is a false question. The correct question should be,What is better for the safety of the public,funding for education or funding for law enforcement? I'll chose the latter

Date: Nov 6, 2005

Colonel Truth wrote:

... The correct question should be,What is better for the safety of the public,funding for education or funding for law enforcement? I'll chose the latter

The answer depends if you are near sighted or farsighted. Yes, investing in prisons will improve things in the short term and will get you elected. But in the long term it will not improve the crime situation if you don't invest in real education.

Education in the USA is in rapid decline in Math and Science for cultural reasons independent of the money spent. Technology leadership will be off shore very soon. Of course we will still lead in things like sports administration, hotel and restaurant management and other pseudo university disciplines.

Date: Nov 6, 2005

No Quarter wrote:

This is liberalism at its best : we're spending more on education and the crime rate is going down,let's spend even more. The reason crime is decreasing is because more criminals are being locked up. Successful programs, like the three strikes and you're out, have placed many of the habitual offenders behind bars. These folks are sociopaths and would be criminals no matter what. The message; MONEY SPENT ON PRISONS IS GOOD,IT SAVES LIVES.

And

Colonel Truth wrote:

This is a false question. The correct question should be,What is better for the safety of the public,funding for education or funding for law enforcement? I'll chose the latter.

Please read the studies I cited earlier. They are done by groups of law enforcement officials. They disagree with both of you. Also, the studies were done in 9 states, mostly 'blue' and including Mississippi.

Date: Nov 6, 2005

ok wrote:

mostly 'blue' and including Mississippi.

That would make more sense if I got it right. Mostly 'red' and including Mississippi.

Date: Nov 7, 2005

Mr. Wizard wrote:

I'm not sure that I believe these numbers. But assuming they are valid, might the drop in violent crime be a consequence of the fact that so many criminals are in jail?

For starters, if you don't believe the U.S. Department of Justice just might publish the definitive numbers on crime in America, you might as well get your figures out of thin air (which is where Cossack got his/hers to begin this whole sorry-go-round). Second, since the criminals are being satisfactorily housed in jails, I see no reason to spend more on prisons.

It would be far cheaper just to go back to summary executions for violent offenders, wouldn't it?

Date: Nov 7, 2005

Invictus wrote:

It would be far cheaper just to go back to summary executions for violent offenders, wouldn't it?

summary or wintery, the season doesn't matter.