Literacy Behind Bars
U.S. Department of Education
NCES 2007–473

Results From the 2003
National Assessment of
Adult Literacy Prison Survey

Literacy Behind Bars
Results From the 2003
National Assessment of
Adult Literacy Prison Survey
May 2007
U.S. Department of Education
NCES 2007-473

Elizabeth Greenberg
Eric Dunleavy
Mark Kutner
American Institutes
for Research

Sheida White
Project Officer
National Center for
Education Statistics

U.S. Department of Education
Margaret Spellings
Secretary
Institute of Education Sciences
Grover J. Whitehurst
Director
National Center for Education Statistics
Mark Schneider
Commissioner
The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) is the primary federal entity for collecting, analyzing, and reporting data
related to education in the United States and other nations. It fulfills a congressional mandate to collect, collate, analyze, and
report 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 improving
their 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 of
Education, the Congress, the states, other education policymakers, practitioners, data users, and the general public. Unless
specifically 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 comments
or suggestions about this or any other NCES product or report, we would like to hear from you. Please direct your comments
to:
National Center for Education Statistics
Institute of Education Sciences
U.S. Department of Education
1990 K Street NW
Washington, DC 20006–5651
May 2007
The 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 Citation
Greenberg, E., Dunleavy, E., and Kutner, M. (2007). Literacy Behind Bars: Results From the 2003 National Assessment of Adult
Literacy Prison Survey (NCES 2007-473). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education
Statistics.
For ordering information on this report, write to:
U.S. Department of Education
ED Pubs
P.O. Box 1398
Jessup, MD 20794–1398
or call toll free 1–877–4ED–Pubs or order online at http://www.edpubs.org.
Content Contact
Sheida White
(202) 502-7473
sheida.white@ed.gov

Literacy Levels

Executive Summary

T

he 2003 National Assessment of Adult
Literacy (NAAL) assessed the English literacy of incarcerated adults for the first time
since 1992. The assessment was administered to
approximately 1,200 inmates (ages 16 and older) in
state and federal prisons, as well as to approximately
18,000 adults (ages 16 and older) living in households. The prison sample is representative of the
1,380,000 adults in prison and the household sample
is representative of the 221,020,000 adults in households in 2003.1 The 2003 adult literacy assessment
covered the same content as the 1992 National Adult
Literacy Survey, and both assessments used the same
definition of literacy:

Changes in the Prison
Population and Prisoners'
Literacy Between 1992 and
2003
Comparing the Prison and
Household Populations
Education and Job Training in
Prison
Work and Literacy Experiences
in Prison
Criminal History and Current
Offense

Using printed and written information to function in society, to achieve one’s goals, and to
develop one’s knowledge and potential.
Unlike indirect measures of literacy, which rely on
self-reports and other subjective evaluations, the
assessment measured literacy directly through tasks
completed by adults.These tasks represent a range of
literacy activities that adults are likely to face in their
daily lives. Prison inmates were asked to complete
the same tasks as adults living in households.

1Household

data collection was conducted from March 2003 through
February 2004; prison data collection was conducted from March through
July 2004. Following the precedent set with the 1992 adult literacy assessment, for which data collection also extended into a second year and all
prison data collection was conducted during the second year (1993), this
assessment is referred to as the 2003 NAAL throughout this report.

iii

Literacy Behind Bars

Three types of literacy were measured by the assessment on 0- to 500-point scales:
1. Prose literacy. The knowledge and skills needed
to search, comprehend, and use information
from continuous texts. Prose examples include
editorials, news stories, brochures, and instructional materials.
2. Document literacy.The knowledge and skills needed to search, comprehend, and use information
from noncontinuous texts. Document examples
include job applications, payroll forms, transportation schedules,maps,tables,and drug or food labels.
3. Quantitative literacy. The knowledge and skills
needed to identify and perform computations
using numbers that are embedded in printed
materials. Examples include balancing a checkbook, computing a tip, completing an order
form, or determining the amount of interest on
a loan from an advertisement.
This report presents the findings from the 2003
prison adult literacy assessment. The report includes
analyses that compare the literacy of the U.S. prison
population in 2003 with the literacy of the U.S.
prison population in 1992. It also includes analyses
that compare the literacy of the prison and household populations in 2003.The analyses in this report
use standard t tests to determine statistical significance. Statistical significance is reported at p <.05.

Literacy Levels
The Committee on Performance Levels for Adult
Literacy, appointed by the National Research
Council’s Board on Testing and Assessment (BOTA),
recommended a set of performance levels for the
prose, document, and quantitative scales. Drawing on
their recommendations, the U.S. Department of
Education decided to report the assessment results by
using four literacy levels for these scales: Below Basic,
Basic, Intermediate, and Proficient.
iv

Below Basic indicates that an adult has no more than the
most simple and concrete literacy skills. Basic indicates
that an adult has the skills necessary to perform simple
and everyday literacy activities. Intermediate indicates
that an adult has the skills necessary to perform moderately challenging literacy activities. Proficient indicates
that an adult has the skills necessary to perform more
complex and challenging literacy activities.
BOTA’s Committee on Performance Levels for Adult
Literacy also recommended reporting the 2003 results
by using a separate category: nonliterate in English.
Adults were considered to be nonliterate in English if
they were unable to complete a minimum number of
simple literacy questions or if they were unable to
communicate in English or Spanish.
Adults who were classified as nonliterate in English
because they could not complete a minimum number of simple literacy questions were generally able
to complete the background questionnaire, which
was administered orally in either English or Spanish;
for reporting purposes, they were included in the
Below Basic literacy level. Adults who were classified
as nonliterate in English because they were unable
to communicate in either English or Spanish could
not complete the background questionnaire; they
are not included in the analyses in this report, which
rely on background data. Adults who could not be
tested because of a cognitive or mental disability are
also not included in the analyses in this report, but
in the absence of any information about their literacy abilities, they are not considered to be nonliterate in English.

Changes in the Prison Population and
Prisoners’ Literacy Between 1992 and 2003
The rate of incarceration in federal and state prisons in
the United States increased from 332 per 100,000 in
1992 to 487 per 100,000 in 2003. (These figures do
not include jails.) The prison population was larger,
older, and somewhat better educated in 2003 than in

Executive Summary

inmates who spoke only English before starting
school (figure 2-11).

1992. The parents of prison inmates were also better
educated in 2003 than in 1992.
■

■

■

The average prose and quantitative literacy of
the prison population was higher in 2003 than
in 1992. In 2003, some 3 percent of the prison
population was considered to be nonliterate in
English (figure 2-1).2
Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy was higher for Black3 prison inmates in
2003 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 and
Hispanic inmates. Black prison inmates had
higher average document literacy than Hispanic
inmates (figure 2-3).

In 2003, a higher percentage of prison inmates than
adults living in households were male, Black, and
Hispanic, and a higher percentage had been diagnosed with a learning disability. A lower percentage
of prison inmates than adults living in households
were ages 40 or older, and a lower percentage spoke
a language other than English as children.

In 2003, prison inmates’ average prose and quantitative literacy was higher with each increasing
level of education. For example, inmates with less
than a high school education had lower average
prose and quantitative literacy than inmates with
some high school (figure 2-5).

■

The average prose and quantitative literacy of
incarcerated men increased between 1992 and
2003 (figure 2-7).

■

Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy increased between 1992 and 2003 for
prison inmates in the 25 to 39 age group. In
2003, incarcerated adults who were 40 years old
or older had lower average prose and document
literacy than incarcerated adults who were 25 to
39 years old (figure 2-9).

■

Comparing the Prison and Household
Populations

Average prose and quantitative literacy
increased between 1992 and 2003 for prison

2 The

design of the 1992 assessment did not allow the estimation of
the size of the population nonliterate in English.
3 Black
4 All

■

Prison inmates had lower average prose, document, and quantitative literacy than adults living
in households (figure 3-1).

■

Incarcerated White adults had lower average
prose literacy than White adults living in households. Incarcerated Black and Hispanic adults
had higher average prose literacy than Black
and Hispanic adults in households (figure 3-3).

■

Black inmates who had been in prison for a
shorter period of time (incarcerated in 2002 or
later) had prose literacy that was not statistically significantly different from that of Black
adults living in households, whereas Black
inmates who had been incarcerated since before
2002 had higher average prose literacy than
Black adults living in households (figure 3-3
and table 3-3).5

■

In general, either prison inmates had lower
average prose, document, and quantitative literacy than adults living in households with the
same level of highest educational attainment or
there was no statistically significant difference
between the two groups. The exception was
that among adults without any high school
education, prison inmates had higher average

includes African American.

adults of Hispanic origin are classified as Hispanic, regardless of
race. Hispanic includes Latino.

5

The sample size for Hispanic inmates did not allow the separate
estimation of literacy by length of incarceration.

v

Literacy Behind Bars

literacy on all three scales than adults living in
households (figure 3-5).
■

Both male and female prison inmates had lower
average literacy on all three scales than adults of
the same gender living in households (figure 3-9).

■

In every age group examined (16 to 24, 25 to
39, and 40 or older), incarcerated adults had
lower average prose, document, and quantitative
literacy than adults in the same age group living
in households (figure 3-11).

■

■

Among adults who spoke only English before
starting school, those who were incarcerated
had lower average prose, document, and quantitative literacy than those who lived in households (figure 3-13).
Among adults whose parents were high school
graduates or attained postsecondary education,
prison inmates had lower average prose, document, and quantitative literacy than those
adults who lived in households whose parents
had the same level of highest educational
attainment (figure 3-15).

Education and Job Training in Prison
Educational and vocational training programs are an
important component of prisons’ rehabilitative purpose. In general, inmates who participated in prison
education and training programs had higher average
literacy than inmates who did not.
■

vi

Forty-three percent of prison inmates had
obtained a high school diploma or a high
school equivalency certificate before the start
of their current incarceration. An additional 19
percent of prison inmates had earned their
high school equivalency certificate during
their current incarceration, and 5 percent were
enrolled in academic classes that might eventually lead to a high school equivalency certificate (figure 4-1).

■

Prison inmates with a high school diploma or a
high school equivalency certificate had higher
average prose, document, and quantitative literacy
than prison inmates with lower levels of education. Inmates who earned their high school
equivalency certificate during their current incarceration had higher average quantitative literacy
than prison inmates who entered prison with a
high school diploma or a high school equivalency certificate (figure 4-3).

■

Twenty-nine percent of prison inmates had
participated in some sort of vocational training.
However, more inmates reported being on
waiting lists for these programs than were
enrolled (figures 4-5 and 4-6).

■

Prison inmates who had participated in vocational training had higher average prose, document, and quantitative literacy than prison
inmates who had not participated in any sort of
vocational training program during their current incarceration (figure 4-9).

■

Prison inmates who had received either information technology (IT) certification or some
other type of certification recognized by a
licensing board or an industry or professional
association had higher average prose, document,
and quantitative literacy than prison inmates
who did not have the same type of certification.
However, prison inmates who had received
either type of certification had lower average
levels of prose, document, and quantitative literacy than adults in the household population
with similar certifications (figure 4-12).

Work and Literacy Experiences in Prison
The relationship between literacy and participation in
prison activities is complex. Inmates who enter prison
with higher literacy may be more likely to engage in
some activities, such as using the library and computers, reading, or even getting certain work assignments.

Executive Summary

Participating in any of these activities may help
inmates improve their literacy. In general, there was a
relationship between literacy and participation in
activities in prison, such that inmates who participated in activities that required some reading or writing
had average literacy that was either higher than or not
measurably different from the average literacy of
inmates who did not participate in these activities.
■

■

■

In 2003, some 68 percent of prison inmates had
a work assignment. Prison inmates with work
assignments had higher average prose and quantitative literacy than inmates who did not have
work assignments (figure 5-1).
A higher percentage of inmates with Proficient
and Intermediate prose literacy than prison
inmates with Below Basic prose literacy had
prison work assignments that required writing
every day (figure 5-6).
A higher percentage of inmates with Basic,
Intermediate, and Proficient prose literacy than
with Below Basic prose literacy used the library.
Moreover, prison inmates who used the prison
library had higher average prose literacy than
prison inmates who never used the library (figure 5-9).

■

Prison inmates who used a computer for word
processing or for using a CD-ROM had higher average document and quantitative literacy
than inmates who never used a computer for
these things (figure 5-10).

■

A higher percentage of prison inmates with
Proficient 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 higher
average prose and document literacy than prison
inmates who never read, regardless of the frequency with which they read. Additionally, a

higher percentage of inmates with Basic or
Intermediate than with Below Basic prose literacy
read newspapers and magazines, books, and letters and notes every day (figures 5-14 and 5-15).

Criminal History and Current Offense
On average, prison sentences were longer in 2003
than in 1992. In both 1992 and 2003, the commission of a violent crime was the most common reason
adults were incarcerated. There was a slight decline
between 1992 and 2003 in the percentage of inmates
who were imprisoned because of property crimes.
Literacy is perhaps of most concern for inmates who
are nearing their expected date of release because
they will need to find jobs outside of prison. In 2003,
some 62 percent of inmates expected to be released
within 2 years.
■

Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy was higher in 2003 than in 1992 for prison
inmates who expected to be incarcerated for 10
years or longer (figure 6-3).

■

In 2003, there were no statistically significant differences in average prose, document, and quantitative literacy between inmates who expected to
be released within the next 2 years and inmates
with longer amounts of time remaining on their
sentences. However, between 1992 and 2003, the
percentage of inmates who expected to be
released within the next 2 years and had Below
Basic prose and quantitative literacy did decrease
(figures 6-5 and 6-6).

■

In 2003, average prose and quantitative literacy
was higher among inmates who had previously been sentenced to both probation and incarceration, and average document literacy was
higher among inmates who had previously
been sentenced to probation only, than for
inmates with the same criminal histories in
1992 (figure 6-7).
vii

Acknowledgments

T

he National Assessment of Adult Literacy
(NAAL) is a complex project whose successful completion is due to the outstanding
work of countless individuals from many organizations. We at the American Institutes for Research
(AIR) are extremely grateful and appreciative for
having the opportunity to work with so many talented and dedicated individuals.We especially want
to thank the staff at the National Center for
Education Statistics who have supported the project, including Peggy Carr, Sheida White (NAAL
project officer), Andrew Kolstad, Steven Gorman,
William Tirre, and Arnold Goldstein.
We also appreciate the input we received from
report reviewers including Bruce Taylor of the
NCES Statistical Standards Program, and members
of the Education Statistics Services Institute staff:
Yung Chun, Jaleh Soroui, Linda Schaefer, Jing Chen
Matt Adams, Carianne Santagelo, Zeyu Xu, Steve
Hocker, and Steve Mistler.
John Linton, Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools,
U.S. Department of Education, and Caroline
Harlow, formerly with the Bureau of Justic
Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, played an
important role in the planning, design, and reporting of the NAAL prison study. They also served as
reviewers of this report. We are grateful for their
guidance and support. We also very much appreciate the support of the prison staff members and
inmates who advised us on the design of this study

ix

Literacy Behind Bars

and made many suggestions for improving the background questionnaire.
Our colleagues at Westat, Inc.—including Martha
Berlin, Michelle Amsbary, Leyla Mohadjer, and
Jacquie Hogan—planned, developed, and implemented the sampling and weighting plan and also
planned and carried out the data collection.
Many staff members at AIR, in addition to the report
authors, made substantial contributions to the prison
literacy report. We would especially like to thank

x

Justin Baer, Eugene Johnson, Stephane Baldi, Ying
Jin, Heather Block, Holly Baker, Elizabeth Moore,
Rachel Greenberg, and Janan Musa.
Thousands of adults in both households and prisons
participated in the assessment. Their willingness to
spend time answering the background questions and
assessment items was essential to ensuring that meaningful data about the literacy of America’s adults
could be obtained. This study would not have been
possible without their participation.

CONTENTS

Contents
Page
Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii
List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xviii
Chapter 1: Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Defining and Measuring Literacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Interpreting Literacy Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Conducting the Survey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Interpretation of Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Organization of the Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Chapter 2: Changes in the Prison Population and Prisoners’ Literacy
between 1992 and 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Total Prison Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Race/Ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Highest Level of Educational Attainment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Gender . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Language Spoken Before Starting School. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Parents’ Highest Level of Educational Attainment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Chapter 3: Comparing the Prison and Household Populations. . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Total Prison and Household Populations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Race/Ethnicity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

xi

Literacy Behind Bars

Page
Highest Level of Educational Attainment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Gender. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Age. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Language Spoken Before Starting School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Parents’ Highest Level of Educational Attainment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Chapter 4: Education and Job Training in Prison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47
Academic Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Vocational Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Skill Certification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Chapter 5: Work and Literacy Experiences in Prison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57
Prison Work Assignments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Library Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Computer Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Reading Frequency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Chapter 6: Criminal History and Current Offense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .71
Type of Offense. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Expected Length of Incarceration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Expected Date of Release . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Previous Criminal History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .81
Appendix A: Sample Assessment Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .83
Appendix B: Definitions of All Subpopulations and Background Variables Reported . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .93
Appendix C: Technical Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .99
Appendix D: Estimates and Standard Errors for Tables and Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .107

xii

Contents

List of Tables
Table
1-1.
1-2.
1-3.
2-1.
3-1.
3-2.
3-3.
3-4.
6-1.
C-1.
C-2.
D2-1.
D2-2.
D2-3.
D2-4.
D2-5.
D2-6.
D2-7.
D2-8.
D2-9.
D2-10.
D2-11.
D2-12.

Page
Correlations among the prose, document, and quantitative scales for the prison population: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Correlations among the prose, document, and quantitative scales for the household population: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Overview of the literacy levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Percentage of the adult prison population in selected groups: 1992 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Percentage of the adult prison and household populations in selected groups: 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Average prose literacy scores of the adult prison and household populations, by race/ethnicity and age: 2003. . . . . . . . . . . 31
Average prose literacy scores of the adult prison and household populations,by race/ethnicity and date incarcerated:2003. . 31
Percentage of the Black and White adult prison and household populations in each prose, document, and quantitative
literacy level, by highest educational attainment: 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Percentage of the adult prison population in selected groups: 1992 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Weighted and unweighted household response rate, by survey component: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
Weighted and unweighted prison response rate, by survey component: 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
Estimates and standard errors for Table 2-1.Percentage of the adult prison population in selected groups:1992 and 2003. . 108
Estimates and standard errors for Figure 2-1. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult
prison population: 1992 and 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
Estimates and standard errors for Figure 2-2. Percentage of the adult prison population in each prose, document, and
quantitative literacy level: 1992 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
Estimates and standard errors for Figure 2-3. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult
prison population, by race/ethnicity: 1992 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
Estimates and standard errors for Figure 2-4. Percentage of the adult prison population in each prose, document, and
quantitative literacy level, by race/ethnicity: 1992 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
Estimates and standard errors for Figure 2-5. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult
prison population, by highest educational attainment: 1992 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
Estimates and standard errors for Figure 2-6. Percentage of the adult prison population in each prose, document, and
quantitative literacy level, by highest educational attainment: 1992 and 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
Estimates and standard errors for Figure 2-7. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult
prison population, by gender: 1992 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
Estimates and standard errors for Figure 2-8. Percentage of the adult prison population in each prose, document, and
quantitative literacy level, by gender: 1992 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
Estimates and standard errors for Figure 2-9. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult
prison population, by age: 1992 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
Estimates and standard errors for Figure 2-10. Percentage of the adult prison population in each prose, document, and
quantitative literacy level, by age: 1992 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
Estimates and standard errors for Figure 2-11. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult
prison population, by language spoken before starting school: 1992 and 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

xiii

Literacy Behind Bars

Table

Page

D2-13. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 2-12. Percentage of the adult prison population in each prose, document, and
quantitative literacy level, by language spoken before starting school: 1992 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
D2-14. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 2-13. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult
prison population, by parents’ highest educational attainment: 1992 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
D2-15. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 2-14. Percentage of the adult prison population in each prose, document, and
quantitative literacy level, by parents’ highest educational attainment: 1992 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
D3-1. Estimates and standard errors for Table 3-1. Percentage of the adult prison and household populations in selected
groups: 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
D3-2. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 3-1. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult
prison and household populations: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
D3-3. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 3-2. Percentage of the adult prison and household populations in each prose,
document, and quantitative literacy level: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
D3-4. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 3-3. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult
prison and household populations, by race/ethnicity: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
D3-5. Estimates and standard errors for Table 3-2. Average prose literacy scores of the adult prison and household
populations, by race/ethnicity and age: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
D3-6. Estimates and standard errors for Table 3-3. Average prose literacy scores of the adult prison and household
populations, by race/ethnicity and date incarcerated: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
D3-7. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 3-4. Percentage of the adult prison and household populations in each prose,
document, and quantitative literacy level, by race/ethnicity: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
D3-8. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 3-5. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult
prison and household populations, by highest educational attainment: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
D3-9. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 3-6. Percentage of the adult prison and household populations in each prose,
document, and quantitative literacy level, by highest educational attainment: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
D3-10. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 3-7. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the White
adult prison and household populations, by highest educational attainment: 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
D3-11. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 3-8. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the Black
adult prison and household populations, by highest educational attainment: 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
D3-12. Estimates and standard errors for Table 3-4. Percentage of the Black and White adult prison and household
populations in each prose, document, and quantitative literacy level, by highest educational attainment: 2003. . . . . . . . . 122
D3-13. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 3-9. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult
prison and household populations, by gender: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
D3-14. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 3-10. Percentage of the adult prison and household populations in each prose,
document, and quantitative literacy level, by gender: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
D3-15. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 3-11. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult
prison and household populations, by age: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
D3-16. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 3-12. Percentage of the adult prison and household populations in each
prose, document, and quantitative literacy level, by age: 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124

xiv

Contents

Table

Page

D3-17. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 3-13. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult
prison and household populations, by language spoken before starting school: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
D3-18. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 3-14. Percentage of the adult prison and household populations in each
prose, document, and quantitative literacy level, by language spoken before starting school: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
D3-19. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 3-15. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult
prison and household populations, by parents’ highest educational attainment: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
D3-20. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 3-16. Percentage of the adult prison and household populations in each
prose, document, and quantitative literacy level, by parents’ highest educational attainment: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
D4-1. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 4-1. Percentage of the adult prison population, by GED/high school diploma
attainment: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
D4-2. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 4-2. Percentage of the adult prison population with a GED/high school
equivalency certificate or high school diploma, by expected date of release: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
D4-3. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 4-3. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult
prison population, by GED/high school diploma attainment: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
D4-4. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 4-4. Percentage of the adult prison population in each prose, document, and
quantitative literacy level, by GED/high school diploma attainment: 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
D4-5. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 4-5. Percentage of the adult prison population, by length of participation in
vocational training programs: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
D4-6. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 4-6. Percentage of the adult prison population, by enrollment in vocational
training: 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
D4-7. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 4-7. Percentage of the adult prison population who participated in vocational
training during current incarceration, by expected date of release: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
D4-8. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 4-8. Percentage of the adult prison population participating in vocational
training who received selected types of instruction as part of the vocational training, by type of instruction: 2003 . . . . . . 129
D4-9. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 4-9. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult
prison population, by participation in vocational training: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
D4-10. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 4-10. Percentage of the adult prison population who participated in
vocational training, by prose, document, and quantitative literacy level: 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
D4-11. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 4-11. Percentage of the adult prison and household populations who have
received skill certification: 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
D4-12. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 4-12. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult
prison and household populations, by receipt of information technology skill certification: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
D4-13. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 4-13. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult
prison and household populations, by receipt of other job-related skill certification: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
D4-14. Estimates and standard errors for Figures 4-14. and 4-15. Percentage of the adult prison and household populations in
each prose, document, and quantitative literacy level, by receipt of information technology skill certification or other
job-related skill certification: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
D5-1. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 5-1. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult
prison population, by current prison work assignment: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
xv

Literacy Behind Bars

Table

Page

D5-2. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 5-2. Percentage of the adult prison population who had a current prison
work assignment, by prose, document, and quantitative literacy level: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
D5-3. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 5-3. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult
prison population, by frequency of reading as part of current prison work assignment: 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
D5-4. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 5-4. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult
prison population, by frequency of writing as part of current prison work assignment: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
D5-5. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 5-5. Percentage of the adult prison population who read as part of current
prison work assignment, by prose literacy level: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
D5-6. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 5-6. Percentage of the adult prison population who wrote as part of current
prison work assignment, by prose and document literacy level: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
D5-7. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 5-7. Percentage of the adult prison population who attempted to use the
prison library, by number of days it took to obtain access: 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
D5-8. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 5-8. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult
prison population, by frequency of library use: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
D5-9. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 5-9. Percentage of the adult prison population who used the library, by prose
literacy level: 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
D5-10. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 5-10. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult
prison population, by computer use for various tasks: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
D5-11. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 5-11. Percentage of the adult prison population who wrote using a word
processing program, by prose literacy level: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
D5-12. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 5-12. Percentage of the adult prison population who looked up information
on a computer CD-ROM, by document literacy level: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
D5-13. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 5-13. Percentage of the adult prison population who used a computer
spreadsheet program, by quantitative literacy level: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
D5-14. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 5-14. Percentage of the adult prison and household populations who read
each of the following printed materials in English: newspapers or magazines, books, letters and notes, by frequency
of reading: 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
D5-15. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 5-15. Average prose and document literacy scores of the adult prison
population, by frequency of reading each of the following printed materials in English: newspapers or magazines,
books, letters and notes: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
D5-16. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 5-16. Percentage of the adult prison population who read each of the
following printed materials in English:newspapers or magazines, books, letters and notes, by prose literacy level:2003 . . 141
D6-1. Estimates and standard errors for Table 6-1. Percentage of the adult prison population in selected groups: 1992
and 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
D6-2. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 6-1. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult
prison population, by type of offense: 1992 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
D6-3. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 6-2. Percentage of the adult prison population in each prose, document, and
quantitative literacy level, by type of offense: 1992 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143

xvi

Contents

Table

Page

D6-4. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 6-3. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult
prison population, by expected length of incarceration: 1992 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
D6-5. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 6-4. Percentage of the adult prison population in each prose, document, and
quantitative literacy level, by expected length of incarceration: 1992 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
D6-6. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 6-5. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult
prison population, by expected date of release: 1992 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
D6-7. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 6-6. Percentage of the adult prison population in each prose, document, and
quantitative literacy level, by expected date of release: 1992 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
D6-8. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 6-7. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult
prison population, by previous criminal history: 1992 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
D6-9. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 6-8. Percentage of the adult prison population in each prose, document, and
quantitative literacy level, by previous criminal history: 1992 and 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146

xvii

Literacy Behind Bars

List of Figures
Figure
1-1.
1-2.
1-3.
2-1.
2-2.
2-3.
2-4.
2-5.
2-6.
2-7.
2-8.
2-9.
2-10.
2-11.
2-12.
2-13.
2-14.
3-1.
3-2.
3-3.
3-4.
3-5.

xviii

Page
Difficulty of selected prose literacy tasks: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Difficulty of selected document literacy tasks: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Difficulty of selected quantitative literacy tasks: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison population: 1992 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Percentage of the adult prison population in each prose, document, and quantitative literacy level: 1992 and 2003 . . . . . . 13
Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison population, by race/ethnicity: 1992
and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Percentage of the adult prison population in each prose, document, and quantitative literacy level, by race/ethnicity:
1992 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison population, by highest educational
attainment: 1992 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Percentage of the adult prison population in each prose, document, and quantitative literacy level, by highest
educational attainment: 1992 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison population, by gender: 1992 and 2003. . . . . 18
Percentage of the adult prison population in each prose, document, and quantitative literacy level, by gender: 1992
and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison population, by age: 1992 and 2003. . . . . . . . 20
Percentage of the adult prison population in each prose, document, and quantitative literacy level, by age: 1992
and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison population, by language spoken before
starting school: 1992 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Percentage of the adult prison population in each prose, document, and quantitative literacy level, by language spoken
before starting school: 1992 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison population, by parents’ highest
educational attainment: 1992 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Percentage of the adult prison population in each prose, document, and quantitative literacy level, by parents’ highest
educational attainment: 1992 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison and household populations: 2003. . . . . . . . . 29
Percentage of the adult prison and household populations in each prose, document, and quantitative literacy level:
2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison and household populations, by
race/ethnicity: 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Percentage of the adult prison and household populations in each prose, document, and quantitative literacy level, by
race/ethnicity: 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison and household populations, by highest
educational attainment: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Contents

Figure
3-6.
3-7.
3-8.
3-9.
3-10.
3-11.
3-12.
3-13.
3-14.
3-15.
3-16.
4-1.
4-2.
4-3.
4-4.
4-5.
4-6.
4-7.
4-8.
4-9.
4-10.

Page
Percentage of the adult prison and household populations in each prose, document, and quantitative literacy level,
by highest educational attainment: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the White adult prison and household populations,
by highest educational attainment: 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the Black adult prison and household populations,
by highest educational attainment: 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison and household populations, by gender:
2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Percentage of the adult prison and household populations in each prose, document, and quantitative literacy level,
by gender: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison and household populations, by age: 2003 . . 39
Percentage of the adult prison and household populations in each prose, document, and quantitative literacy level,
by age: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison and household populations, by language
spoken before starting school: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Percentage of the adult prison and household populations in each prose, document, and quantitative literacy level,
by language spoken before starting school: 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison and household populations, by parents’
highest educational attainment: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Percentage of the adult prison and household populations in each prose, document, and quantitative literacy level,
by parents’ highest educational attainment: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Percentage of the adult prison population, by GED/high school diploma attainment: 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Percentage of the adult prison population with a GED/high school equivalency certificate or high school diploma, by
expected date of release: 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison population, by GED/high school diploma
attainment: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Percentage of the adult prison population in each prose, document, and quantitative literacy level, by GED/high school
diploma attainment: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Percentage of the adult prison population, by length of participation in vocational training programs: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Percentage of the adult prison population, by enrollment in vocational training: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Percentage of the adult prison population who participated in vocational training during their current incarceration,
by expected date of release: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Percentage of the adult prison population participating in vocational training who received selected types of instruction
as part of the vocational training, by type of instruction: 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison population, by participation in vocational
training: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Percentage of the adult prison population who participated in vocational training, by prose, document, and
quantitative literacy level: 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
xix

Literacy Behind Bars

Figure

Page

4-11. Percentage of the adult prison and household populations who have received skill certification: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
4-12. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison and household populations, by receipt of
information technology skill certification: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
4-13. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison and household populations, by receipt
of other job-related skill certification: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
4-14. Percentage of the adult prison and household populations in each quantitative literacy level, by receipt of information
technology skill certification: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
4-15. Percentage of the adult prison and household populations in each quantitative literacy level, by receipt of other
job-related skill certification: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
5-1. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison population, by current prison work
assignment: 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
5-2. Percentage of the adult prison population who had a current prison work assignment, by prose, document, and
quantitative literacy level: 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
5-3. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison population, by frequency of reading as
part of current prison work assignment: 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
5-4. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison population, by frequency of writing as
part of current prison work assignment: 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
5-5. Percentage of the adult prison population who read as part of current prison work assignment, by prose literacy level:
2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
5-6. Percentage of the adult prison population who wrote as part of current prison work assignment, by prose and
document literacy level: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
5-7. Percentage of the adult prison population who attempted to use the prison library, by number of days it took to obtain
access: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
5-8. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison population, by frequency of library use:
2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
5-9. Percentage of the adult prison population who used the library, by prose literacy level: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
5-10. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison population, by computer use for various
tasks: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
5-11. Percentage of the adult prison population who wrote using a word processing program, by prose literacy level: 2003 . . . . 65
5-12. Percentage of the adult prison population who looked up information on a computer CD-ROM, by document literacy
level: 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
5-13. Percentage of the adult prison population who used a computer spreadsheet program, by quantitative literacy level:
2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
5-14. Percentage of the adult prison and household populations who read each of the following printed materials in English:
newspapers or magazines, books, letters and notes, by frequency of reading: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
5-15. Average prose and document literacy scores of the adult prison population, by frequency of reading each of the
following printed materials in English: newspapers or magazines, books, letters and notes: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

xx

Contents

Figure

Page

5-16. Percentage of the adult prison population who read each of the following printed materials in English: newspapers or
magazines, books, letters and notes, by prose literacy level: 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
6-1. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison population, by type of offense: 1992
and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
6-2. Percentage of the adult prison population in each prose, document, and quantitative literacy level, by type of offense:
1992 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
6-3. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison population, by expected length of
incarceration: 1992 and 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
6-4. Percentage of the adult prison population in each prose, document, and quantitative literacy level, by expected length
of incarceration: 1992 and 2003. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
6-5. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison population, by expected date of release:
1992 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
6-6. Percentage of the adult prison population in each prose, document, and quantitative literacy level, by expected date of
release: 1992 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
6-7. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison population, by previous criminal history:
1992 and 2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
6-8. Percentage of the adult prison population in each prose literacy level, by previous criminal history: 1992 and 2003 . . . . . . 80

xxi

1

CHAPTER ONE
Defining and Measuring
Literacy
Interpreting Literacy Results

Introduction

T

he skills and credentials that are acquired
through formal education are important
tools for navigating everyday life in the
United States. Adults with low levels of education
and literacy are more likely than adults with high
education and literacy levels to be unemployed or
to have incomes that put them below the poverty
level (Kutner et al. 2007). Adults who have not
obtained a high school diploma or any postsecondary education are also more likely to be incarcerated than adults with higher levels of education
(Harlow 2003).

Conducting the Survey
Interpretation of Results
Organization of the Report

The 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy
assessed the English literacy of incarcerated adults
in the United States for the first time since 1992.
The assessment was administered to approximately
1,200 inmates in state and federal prisons, as well as
to approximately 18,000 adults living in households. The original motivation for the prison sample was to ensure the assessment was representative
of the entire population of the United States. For
the population estimates presented in other reports,
the prison and household samples are combined or
results are reported for the household population
only.This report presents findings separately for the
prison adult literacy assessment.The report presents
analyses that compare the literacy of the U.S. prison
population in 2003 with the literacy of the prison
population in 1992. It also presents analyses that
compare the literacy of the prison and household
populations.
1

Literacy Behind Bars

Defining and Measuring Literacy

and use information from continuous texts).
Prose examples include editorials, news stories,
brochures, and instructional materials. Prose
texts can be further broken down as expository,
narrative, procedural, or persuasive.

Defining Literacy
Unlike indirect measures of literacy—which rely on
self-reports and other subjective evaluations of literacy and education—the 1992 and 2003 adult literacy assessments measured literacy directly by tasks
representing a range of literacy activities that adults
are likely to face in their daily lives.
The literacy tasks in the assessment were drawn from
actual texts and documents, which were either used
in their original format or reproduced in the assessment booklets. Each question appeared before the
materials needed to answer it, thus encouraging
respondents to read with purpose.
Respondents could correctly answer many assessment questions by skimming the text or document
for the information necessary to perform a given literacy task. All tasks were open-ended.
The 2003 adult literacy assessment covered the same
content of the 1992 assessment, and both assessments
used the same definition of literacy:
Using printed and written information to function in society, to achieve one’s goals, and to
develop one’s knowledge and potential.
The definition implies that literacy goes beyond simply
decoding and comprehending text.A central feature of
the definition is that literacy is related to achieving an
objective and adults often read for a purpose.

Measuring Literacy
As in 1992, three literacy scales—prose literacy, document literacy, and quantitative literacy—were used
in the 2003 assessment:
■

2

Prose literacy.The knowledge and skills needed to
perform prose tasks (i.e., to search, comprehend,

■

Document literacy. The knowledge and skills
needed to perform document tasks (i.e., to
search, comprehend, and use information from
noncontinuous texts in various formats).
Document examples include job applications,
payroll forms, transportation schedules, maps,
tables, and drug or food labels.

■

Quantitative literacy. The knowledge and skills
required to perform quantitative tasks (i.e., to
identify and perform computations, either
alone or sequentially, using numbers embedded
in printed materials). Examples include balancing a checkbook, figuring out a tip, completing
an order form, or determining the amount of
interest on a loan from an advertisement.

Table 1-1 shows the correlations among the prose,
document, and quantitative scales for the prison population in 2003, and table 1-2 shows the same correlations for the household population in 2003. All the
correlations for the prison population are between
.78 and .87; all the correlations for the household
population are between .86 and .89. In chapter 12 of
the Technical Report and Data File User’s Manual for the
1992 National Adult Literacy Survey, Rock and

Table 1-1. Correlations among the prose, document,
and quantitative scales for the prison
population: 2003
Prose
Document
Quantitative

Prose

Document

Quantitative

1.0
.83
.78

.83
1.0
.87

.78
.87
1.0

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for
Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Chapter 1: Introduction

Table 1-2. Correlations among the prose, document,
and quantitative scales for the household
population: 2003
Prose
Document
Quantitative

Prose

Document

Quantitative

1.0
.86
.88

.86
1.0
.89

.88
.89
1.0

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for
Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Yamamoto (2001) examined the correlations among
the three scales and concluded that even though the
scales were highly related, there were still group differences across the scales, indicating that the scales
did not all measure the same construct.
Additional information on the construction of the
literacy scales is presented in Kutner et al. (2007).

Background Questionnaire
The 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy
prison background questionnaire was used to collect
demographic data on inmates and to provide contextual data on their experiences in prison that were
related to literacy, including participation in classes,
job training, and prison work assignments.A primary
goal of the assessment was to measure literacy trends
between 1992 and 2003, so many of the questions on
the 2003 background questionnaire were identical to
questions on the 1992 background questionnaire.
The 2003 background questionnaire also included
some new questions that were added in response to
input from stakeholders and users of the 1992 data.
A separate background questionnaire was developed for
the household study.The demographic questions were
identical on the prison and household questionnaires.

Interpreting Literacy Results
The Committee on Performance Levels for Adult
Literacy, appointed by National Research Council’s

Board on Testing and Assessment (BOTA), recommended a set of performance levels for the 2003
assessment (Hauser et al. 2005). Drawing on their
recommendations, the U.S. Department of
Education decided to report the assessment results
using four literacy levels for each scale. Table 1-3
summarizes the knowledge, skills, and capabilities
that adults needed to demonstrate to be classified
into one of the four levels. Figures 1-1, 1-2, and 1-3
show the types of tasks that map the different levels
on the prose, document, and quantitative scales.
These levels are different from the levels used in
1992.The 1992 data were reanalyzed using the new
levels, and those results are included in this report.
BOTA’s Committee on Performance Levels for
Adult Literacy also recommended reporting the
2003 results by using a separate category: nonliterate
in English. Adults were considered to be nonliterate
in English if they were unable to complete a minimum number of simple literacy questions or if they
were unable to communicate in English or Spanish.
Adults who were classified as nonliterate in English
because they could not complete a minimum number of simple literacy questions were generally able
to complete the background questionnaire, which
was administered orally in either English or Spanish;
for reporting purposes, they were included in the
Below Basic literacy level. Adults who were classified
as nonliterate in English because they were unable
to communicate in either English or Spanish could
not complete the background questionnaire; they
are not included in the analyses in this report that
rely on background data. Adults who could not be
tested because of a cognitive or mental disability are
also not included in the analyses in this report, but
in the absence of any information about their literacy abilities, they are not considered to be nonliterate in English.

3

Literacy Behind Bars

Conducting the Survey6
The 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy
included two samples: (1) adults ages 16 and older
living in households and (2) inmates ages 16 and
older in federal and state prisons. The household
sample is representative of the 21,020,000 adults in
households, and the prison sample is representative of
6Nonresponse

bias analyses are discussed on page 102 of this report.
All percentages in this section are weighted. For unweighted percentages, see tables C-1 and C-2 in appendix C.

the 1,380,000 adults in prison in 2003.The sampling
frame for households was based on the 2000 Census
and the sampling frame for prisons was a list of all
federal and state prisons provided by the Bureau of
Justice Statistics. Each sample was weighted to represent its share of the total population of the United
States. Household data collection was conducted
from March 2003 through February 2004; prison
data collection was conducted from March through
July 2004.Throughout this report, the 2003–04 survey is referred to as the 2003 survey to simplify the

Table 1-3. Overview of the literacy levels
Level and definition

Key abilities associated with level

Below Basic indicates no more than the
most simple and concrete literacy skills.

Adults at the Below Basic level range from being nonliterate in English to having
the abilities listed below:

Score ranges for Below Basic:
Prose:
0–209
Document: 0–204
Quantitative: 0–234

■

locating easily identifiable information in short, commonplace prose texts

■

locating easily identifiable information and following written instructions in
simple documents (e.g., charts or forms)

■

locating numbers and using them to perform simple quantitative operations
(primarily addition) when the mathematical information is very concrete and
familiar

Basic indicates skills necessary to perform
simple and everyday literacy activities.

■

reading and understanding information in short, commonplace prose texts

■

reading and understanding information in simple documents

Score ranges for Basic:
Prose:
210–264
Document: 205–249
Quantitative: 235–289

■

locating easily identifiable quantitative information and using it to solve simple, one-step problems when the arithmetic operation is specified or easily
inferred

Intermediate indicates skills necessary to

■

reading and understanding moderately dense, less commonplace prose texts
as well as summarizing, making simple inferences, determining cause and
effect, and recognizing the author’s purpose

Score ranges for Intermediate:
Prose:
265–339
Document: 250–334
Quantitative: 290–349

■

locating information in dense, complex documents and making simple inferences about the information

■

locating less familiar quantitative information and using it to solve problems
when the arithmetic operation is not specified or easily inferred

Proficient indicates skills necessary to per-

■

reading lengthy, complex, abstract prose texts as well as synthesizing information and making complex inferences

■

integrating, synthesizing, and analyzing multiple pieces of information located
in complex documents

■

locating more abstract quantitative information and using it to solve multistep problems when the arithmetic operations are not easily inferred and the
problems are more complex

perform moderately challenging literacy
activities.

form more complex and challenging literacy
activities.
Score ranges for Proficient:
Prose:
340–500
Document: 335–500
Quantitative: 350–500

NOTE: Although the literacy levels share common names with the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) levels, they do not correspond to the NAEP levels.
SOURCE: Hauser, R.M, Edley, C.F. Jr., Koenig, J.A., and Elliott, S.W. (Eds.). (2005). Measuring Literacy: Performance Levels for Adults, Interim Report.Washington, DC: National Academies Press;White, S. and Dillow, S.
(2005). Key Concepts and Features of the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NCES 2006-471). U.S. Department of Education.Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.

4

Chapter 1: Introduction

presentation, and the 1992–93 survey is referred to as
the 1992 survey. Literacy changes very slowly among
adults, so we would not expect to find significant difference between 2003 and 2004.7
7 The 1992 adult literacy prison data collection took place in 1993,
but results for that survey have been reported using the date of 1992.

For the prison sample, 97 percent (weighted) of prisons that were selected for the study agreed to participate, and the background questionnaire response
rate among prison inmates was 91 percent (weighted).The final prison sample response rate was 88 percent (weighted). For the household sample, the
screener response rate was 82 percent (weighted) and

Figure 1-1. Difficulty of selected prose literacy tasks: 2003
Prose literacy scale
500

450

Proficient
340–500
400

350

409 Infer the purpose of an event described in a magazine article.
403 Find the information required to define a medical term by searching through a complex document.

361
345
345
332

Evaluate information to determine which legal document is applicable to a specific healthcare situation.
Compare viewpoints in two editorials with contrasting interpretations of scientific and economic evidence.
Compare and contrast the meaning of metaphors in a poem.
Compare two different systems of government, using information in a complex text that is not organized with section headers or other
organizing devices.

331 List two facts from a business magazine article that explain why a marketer quoted in the article has a particular opinion.
Intermediate
265–339
300

304 Infer the meaning of a metaphor in a poem.
284 Summarize the work experience required for a specific job, based on information in a newspaper job advertisement.
266 Explain why the author of a first-person narrative chose a particular activity instead of an alternative activity.
254 Find information in a pamphlet for prospective jurors that explains how citizens were selected for the jury pool.

250
Basic
210–264

245 Find information in a newspaper article that explains how students who participate in a school program benefit from the program.
241 Explain the meaning of a metaphor used in a narrative.

213 Find, in a long narrative passage, the name of the person who performed a particular action.
200

Below Basic
0–209

199 Find information in a short, simple prose passage.
190 Determine how long an event lasted, based on information in a short newspaper article.
183 Identify how often a person should have a specified medical test, based on information in a clearly written pamphlet.
161 Identify what it is permissible to drink before a medical test, based on a short set of instructions.

150

0
NOTE:The position of a question on the scale represents the average scale score attained by adults who had a 67 percent probability of successfully answering the question. Only selected questions are presented.
Scale score ranges for performance levels are referenced on the figure.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

5

Literacy Behind Bars

the background questionnaire response rate was
76 percent (weighted). The final household sample
response rate was 62 percent (weighted).
Prison interviews usually took place in a classroom or
library in the prison; household interviews were conducted in respondents’ homes. Whenever possible,

interviewers administered the background questionnaire and assessment in a private setting. Assessments
were administered one-on-one using a computerassisted personal interviewing system (CAPI) programmed into laptop computers. Respondents were
encouraged to use whatever aids they normally used

Figure 1-2. Difficulty of selected document literacy tasks: 2003
Document literacy scale
500

400
388 Interpret survey data presented in a nested table.

Proficient
335–500

372 Contrast financial information presented in a table regarding the differences between various types of credit cards.

350

Intermediate
250–334

300

355 Apply information given in a text to graph a trend.

297 Find the age range during which children should received a particular vaccine, using a chart that shows all the childhood vaccines and
the ages children should receive them.
280 Follow directions, using a clearly labeled map.
269 Find the time a television program ends, using a newspaper television schedule that lists similar programs showing at different times
on different channels.
261 Enter product numbers for office supplies on an order form, using information from a page in an office supplies catalog.

250
Basic
205–249

249 Summarize what the articles in a specified section of a magazine are about, using information in the magazine’s table of contents.
239 Find a table in an almanac with information on a specified topic.
228 Determine and categorize a person’s body mass index (BMI) given the person’s height and weight, a graph that can be used to
determine BMI based on height and weight, and a table that categorizes BMI ranges.

200

206 Locate the intersection of two streets on a clearly labeled map.
191 Find the phone number to call to get directions to a job fair, based on information presented in a newspaper job advertisement.

158 Find the percentage of a market a particular retailer had in 1992, based on information presented in a bar graph.
Below Basic
0–204

150

117 Circle the date of a medical appointment on a hospital appointment slip.
100

0
NOTE:The position of a question on the scale represents the average scale score attained by adults who had a 67 percent probability of successfully answering the question. Only selected questions are presented.
Scale score ranges for performance levels are referenced on the figure.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

6

Chapter 1: Introduction

when reading and performing quantitative tasks,including eyeglasses, magnifying glasses, rulers, and calculators.

The interviewers provided calculators to respondents
who wanted to use one and did not have their own.

Figure 1-3. Difficulty of selected quantitative literacy tasks: 2003
Quantitative literacy scale
500

475
470 Calculate an employee's share of health insurance costs for a year, using a table that shows how the employee's monthly cost varies
with income and family size.

425
Proficient
350 –500
404 Determine the number of units of flooring required to cover the floor in a room, when the area of the room is not evenly divisible by the
units in which the flooring is sold.

375
356 Calculate the yearly cost of a specified amount of life insurance, using a table that gives cost by month for each $1,000 of coverage.

Intermediate 325
290–349

275
Basic
235–289

328 Calculate the cost of raising a child for a year in a family with a specified income, based on a newspaper article that provides the
percentage of a typical family’s budget that goes toward raising children.
309 Determine whether a car has enough gasoline to get to the next gas station, based on a graphic of the car’s fuel gauge, a sign stating
the miles to the next gas station, and information given in the question about the car’s fuel use.
301 Calculate the total cost of ordering office supplies, using a page from an office supplies catalog and an order form.
291 Determine what time a person can take a prescription medication, based on information on the prescription drug label that relates
timing of medication to eating.
284 Perform a two-step calculation to find the cost of three baseball tickets, using an order form that gives the price of one ticket and the
postage and handling charge.
257 Calculate the weekly salary for a job, based on hourly wages listed in a job advertisement.
245 Locate two numbers in a bar graph and calculate the difference between them.
237 Calculate the cost of a sandwich and salad, using prices from a menu.

225

232 Compare two prices by identifying the appropriate numbers and subtracting.
217 Calculate the price difference between two appliances, using information in a table that includes price and other information about the
appliances.

175

178 Calculate the change from a $20 bill after paying the amount on a receipt.

Below Basic
0–234
138 Add two numbers to complete an ATM deposit slip.
125

0
NOTE:The position of a question on the scale represents the average scale score attained by adults who had a 67 percent probability of successfully answering the question. Only selected questions are presented.
Scale score ranges for performance levels are referenced on the figure.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

7

Literacy Behind Bars

One percent of adults in the prison sample and 3
percent of adults in the household sample were
unable to participate in the assessment because they
could not communicate in either English or Spanish
or because they had a mental disability that prevented them from being tested. Literacy scores for these
adults could not be estimated, and they are not
included in the results presented in this report.
Additional information on sampling, response rates,
and data collection procedures is in appendix C.

Interpretation of Results
The adult literacy scales make it possible to examine
relationships between adults’ literacy and various selfreported background factors. However, a relationship
that exists between literacy and another variable does
not reveal its underlying cause, which may be influenced by a number of other variables. Similarly, the
assessment does not reflect the influence of unmeasured variables.The results are most useful when they
are considered in combination with other knowledge about the adult population and literacy levels in
the United States, such as trends in population
demographics and societal demands and expectations. Some of the changes in population demographics are discussed in chapter 2 of this report.
The statistics presented in this report are estimates of
performance based on a sample of respondents,
rather than the values that could be calculated if
every person in the nation answered every question
on the assessment. Estimates of performance of the
population and groups within the population were
calculated by using sampling weights to account for
the fact that the probabilities of selection were not
identical for all respondents. Information about the
uncertainty of each statistic that takes into account
the complex sample design was estimated by using
Taylor series procedures to estimate standard errors
(Binder 1983).

8

The analyses in this report examine differences related to literacy based on self-reported background
characteristics among groups in 2003, as well as
changes within groups between 1992 and 2003, by
using standard t tests to determine statistical significance. Statistical significance is reported at p < .05.
Differences between averages or percentages that are
statistically significant are discussed by using comparative terms such as higher or lower. Differences that are
not statistically significant either are not discussed or
are referred to as “not statistically significant.”
Because the sample size was small for some groups in
the prison population, such as women and Hispanics,
standard errors were larger for estimates relating to
those groups and differences that look large were not
necessarily statistically significant.The fact that a difference was not statistically significant does not necessarily mean there was no difference. Rather, it
means we cannot be 95 percent certain that the differences we see in the sample would hold for the
population as a whole.
For most of the analyses in this report, results are presented for all three scales: prose, document, and quantitative. However, for some of the analyses for which
one or two of the scales were more conceptually
related to the background variable being discussed
than were others, results are presented for a subset of
the scales only.
Detailed tables with estimates and standard errors for
all tables and figures in this report are in appendix D.
Appendix C includes more information about the
weights used for the sample and the procedures used
to estimate standard errors and statistical significance.

Organization of the Report
Chapter 2 of the report presents the prose, document,
and quantitative literacy of the prison population of
the United States as a whole and discusses how the

Chapter 1: Introduction

literacy of the prison population changed between
1992 and 2003.The chapter also examines how literacy varies across groups of prison inmates with different characteristics, including race/ethnicity, gender,
educational attainment, age, language spoken before
starting school, and parents’ educational attainment.
Chapter 3 compares the literacy of adults in the
prison and household populations in 2003. In addition to comparing the populations as a whole, the
chapter examines how literacy differs between adults
in the prison and household populations in groups
with selected characteristics, including race/ethnicity, gender, educational attainment, age, language spoken before starting school, and parents’ educational
attainment.

Chapter 4 examines the relationship between literacy and education and job training, including traditional academic education, vocational education, and
skill certification.
Chapter 5 discusses the relationship between literacy
and experiences in prison other than education.
Topics in chapter 5 are prison work assignments,
library use, computer use, and reading frequency.
Chapter 6 looks at the relationship between literacy,
criminal history, and current offense.The results presented in chapter 6 compare how the relationship
between literacy, type of offense, expected length of
incarceration, expected date of release, and previous
criminal history has changed since 1992.

9

2

CHAPTER TWO
Total Prison Population
Race/Ethnicity

Changes in the Prison Population
and Prisoners’ Literacy Between
1992 and 2003

A

pproximately 1.4 million adults were incarcerated in state or federal prisons in 2003,
half a million more than were incarcerated
in prisons 10 years earlier, an increase of approximately 55 percent (Glaze and Palla 2005; Snell
1995). The incarceration rate per 100,000 population increased from 332 in 1992 to 487 in 2003
(Bureau of Justice Statistics 1997; Harrison and Beck
2005). In addition to being larger, the prison population was somewhat older in 2003 than in 1992: in
2003, some 32 percent of prison inmates were age
40 or older, compared with 19 percent in 1992
(table 2-1). A lower percentage of prison inmates
ended their education before completing high
school in 2003 than in 1992. In 2003, some 9 percent of prison inmates dropped out of school before
starting high school and 28 percent started high
school but did not obtain a diploma or a General
Educational Development (GED) credential/high
school equivalency certificate, compared with 13
percent and 36 percent, respectively, in 1992. The
parents of prison inmates were also better educated
in 2003 than in 1992. In 2003, some 33 percent of
prison inmates had parents who had completed at
least some postsecondary education, compared with
25 percent in 1992.

Highest Level of Educational
Attainment
Gender
Age
Language Spoken Before
Starting School
Parents’ Highest Level of
Educational Attainment
Summary

11

Literacy Behind Bars

Table 2-1. Percentage of the adult prison population in selected groups: 1992 and 2003
Characteristic
Race/ethnicity
White
Black
Hispanic
Other
Gender
Male
Female
Highest educational attainment
Less than high school
Some high school
GED/high school equivalency
High school graduate
Postsecondary
Age
16–24
25–39
40+
Language spoken before starting school
English only
English and other
Other only
Parents’ highest educational attainment
Less than high school
Some high school
GED/high school equivalency/
high school graduate
Postsecondary

1992

2003

35
45
16
3

32
46
18
5

94
6

94
6

13
36
17
14
20

9*
28*
28*
13
22

23
58
19

16*
52*
32*

85
6
9

85
6
9

19
16

13*
13

39
25

41
33*

*Significantly different from 1992.
NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Adults are defined as people 16 years of
age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or
cognitive or mental disabilities (3 percent in 1992 and 1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this
table. In 1992, respondents were allowed to identify only one race but could identify “other”as their
race. In 2003, respondents were allowed to identify multiple races but could not choose “other”as
their race.The “Other”category includes Asians, Pacific Islanders, Native Hawaiians, American
Indians, and Alaska Natives. In 2003, the “Other”category also includes adults who said they were
multi-racial; in 1992, it also includes adults who chose “other”as their race. All adults of Hispanic
origin are classified as Hispanic, regardless of race. Black includes African American, and Hispanic
includes Latino. Postsecondary includes any education beyond high school.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for
Education Statistics, 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey and 2003 National Assessment of Adult
Literacy.

12

The analyses in this chapter examine how the literacy levels of prison inmates changed between 1992
and 2003.The chapter starts with an examination of
the change in literacy between 1992 and 2003
among the entire prison population. Because the
2003 prison population is larger than the prison population in 1992 and is different in terms of age and
educational background, just looking at differences
in literacy among all prison inmates can obscure
important changes within different groups in the
prison population. Therefore, the majority of the
chapter is focused on analyses that examine the literacy of different groups within the prison population
characterized by demographic category, educational
attainment, and language background.
When interpreting the results presented in this chapter, it is important to remember that the population
of prison inmates changes every year because some
people are released after serving their sentences and
other people are newly incarcerated. This is not a
longitudinal study. Therefore, it is not possible to
track the performance of individual prison inmates
over time by using the results of this study. If the
results presented in this chapter show that average literacy changed between 1992 and 2003 among a particular group of prison inmates, it should not be
interpreted as meaning that the literacy of adults who
were incarcerated in 1992 changed.8
8

The study design did not permit the separate examination of the
literacy of inmates who were incarcerated for the entire 11-year
time period between the 1992 and 2003 assessments.

Chapter 2: Changes in the Prison Population and Prisoners’ Literacy between 1992 and 2003

Total Prison Population
The average prose and quantitative literacy of the
prison population was higher in 2003 than in 1992
(figure 2-1). On all three scales, a lower percentage of
prison inmates had Below Basic literacy and a higher
percentage of prison inmates had Intermediate literacy
in 2003 than in 1992 (figure 2-2). Because of the
increase in the size of the prison population, the
number of prison inmates with Below Basic prose literacy was approximately 200,000 in both years,

despite the decline in the percentage of incarcerated
adults with Below Basic prose literacy from 22 to 16
percent.

Nonliterate in English
In 2003, 3 percent of the prison population (42,000
adults) was considered to be nonliterate in English
either because the inmates did poorly on the easiest
test questions or because language barriers kept them
from taking the test.9
9 The

design of the 1992 assessment did not allow the estimation of
the size of the nonliterate-in-English population.

Figure 2-1. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison
population: 1992 and 2003
Average score
500

Literacy scale
and year

350

300

250

Figure 2-2. Percentage of the adult prison population in each prose, document, and quantitative literacy level: 1992 and 2003

Prose

248

257*
243

249

1992
2003

22

40

35

16*

40

41*

1992
2003

22

3
3

249*
234

Document

33

15*

35

42

3

48*

2

200
Quantitative

50

1992
2003

32
39*

39*

16 3
20* 2

150
0

80
Prose

Document
Literacy scale

Quantitative

60 40 20
Percent Below Basic

Below Basic
1992

Basic

0

20 40 60 80
Percent Basic and above

Intermediate

100

Proficient

2003

*Significantly different from 1992.
NOTE: Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not
be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (3 percent in 1992 and 1
percent in 2003) are excluded from this figure.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for
Education Statistics, 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey and 2003 National Assessment of Adult
Literacy.

*Significantly different from 1992.
NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Adults are defined as people 16 years of
age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or
cognitive or mental disabilities (3 percent in 1992 and 1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this
figure.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for
Education Statistics, 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey and 2003 National Assessment of Adult
Literacy.

13

Literacy Behind Bars

Race/Ethnicity

percentage of Hispanic prison inmates had Below
Basic document and quantitative literacy in 2003
than in 1992: 36 percent had Below Basic document
literacy and 64 percent had Below Basic quantitative
literacy in 1992, compared with 23 percent and 53
percent in 2003, respectively (figure 2-4).Adults with
Below Basic literacy can do no more than the most
simple literacy activities.

Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy
increased for Black prison inmates between 1992 and
2003 (figure 2-3). Average quantitative literacy also
increased for Hispanic inmates.There were no statistically significant changes in average literacy on any
of the three scales for White prison inmates.The gap
in document literacy scores between White and
Black inmates was smaller in 2003 than in 1992.

A comparison across racial/ethnic groups in 2003
shows that White prison inmates had higher average
prose, document, and quantitative literacy than Black
and Hispanic inmates (figure 2-3). Black prison
inmates had higher average document literacy than
Hispanic inmates.

Between 1992 and 2003, the percentage of Black
prison inmates with Below Basic literacy declined
from 25 to 15 percent on the prose scale, from 28 to
19 percent on the document scale, and from 63 to 49
percent on the quantitative scale (figure 2-4).A lower

Figure 2-3. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison population, by
race/ethnicity: 1992 and 2003
Average score
500
Prose

350

Document

Quantitative

300
267

274

250

241

262

252*

268 265

256 255

248
224

240*

232

229

266

274
251 254
237*

236
224

216

231*
212

200

150
0

White

Black

Hispanic

Other

White

Black
Hispanic
Race/ethnicity
1992

Other

White

Black

Hispanic

Other

2003

*Significantly different from 1992.
NOTE: Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (3 percent in 1992 and 1 percent in
2003) are excluded from this figure. In 1992, respondents were allowed to identify only one race but could identify “other”as their race. In 2003, respondents were allowed to identify multiple races but could not
choose “other” as their race.The “Other”category includes Asians, Pacific Islanders, Native Hawaiians, American Indians, and Alaska Natives. In 2003, the “Other”category also includes adults who said they were
multi-racial; in 1992, it also includes adults who chose “other”as their race. All adults of Hispanic origin are classified as Hispanic, regardless of race. Black includes African American, and Hispanic includes Latino.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey and 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

14

Chapter 2: Changes in the Prison Population and Prisoners’ Literacy between 1992 and 2003

Figure 2-4. Percentage of the adult prison population in each prose, document, and quantitative literacy level,
by race/ethnicity: 1992 and 2003
Prose

Race/ethnicity
and year
White

Black

Hispanic

Other

1992

12

35

47

6

2003

9

32

52

7

1992

25

2003

43

15*

30

47

38

39

22

2003

35

35

28

24

2003
80

39

11
60 40 20
Percent Below Basic

0

Black
1

1

Hispanic

4
46

20 40 60 80
Percent Basic and above

Other
3

Hispanic

1992

27

1992

28

2003

57

31

23*

31

1
2

36

39

13

33

48

2003

14

31

52

0

1

40

1992

60 40 20
Percent Below Basic

3*

31

40

36

8

64
41

19*

1992

39

19

1992

28

49*

2
6

20 40 60 80
Percent Basic and above

4
100

26

53*
41

1992

34

2003

60 40 20
Percent Below Basic

Below Basic

Basic

4

9 1
13 1
9 1

32

13 2

31

19

41
0

6
33

37*

64

1992

28

45

63

2003

80

27

Quantitative

2003

Other

24

6

80

2003

Black

11

2003

100

Race/ethnicity
and year
White

1992

2003

2

33

41

White

1
37

1992

1992

Document

Race/ethnicity
and year

9
24

1

20 40 60 80
Percent Basic and above

Intermediate

100

Proficient

*Significantly different from 1992.
NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (3 percent in 1992 and 1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this figure. In 1992, respondents were allowed to identify only one race but could identify “other”as their race. In 2003, respondents were
allowed to identify multiple races but could not choose “other”as their race.The “Other”category includes Asians, Pacific Islanders, Native Hawaiians, American Indians, and Alaska Natives. In 2003, the “Other”category also includes adults who said they were multi-racial; in 1992, it also includes adults who chose “other”as their race. All adults of Hispanic origin are classified as Hispanic, regardless of race. Black includes
African American, and Hispanic includes Latino.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey and 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

15

Literacy Behind Bars

Highest Level of Educational Attainment

some high school had lower average prose and quantitative literacy than inmates who had received a high
school diploma or a GED/high school equivalency
certificate; and inmates who had received a high
school diploma or a GED/high school equivalency
certificate had lower average prose and document literacy than inmates who had postsecondary education
(figure 2-5). On the document scale, incarcerated
adults’ average literacy increased with each increasing
level of education up to a high school diploma or a
GED/high school equivalency certificate. On all three
scales, prison inmates with a high school diploma had
lower average literacy than inmates with a GED/high
school equivalency certificate.

Average document literacy declined between 1992
and 2003 for inmates with postsecondary education
(figure 2-5). There were no other statistically significant changes in average prose, document, and quantitative literacy for inmates at any other level of educational attainment.Within educational attainment categories, there were no statistically significant changes
in the distribution of prison inmates across the literacy levels on any of the three scales (figure 2-6).
In 2003, inmates with less than a high school education had lower average prose and quantitative literacy
than inmates with some high school; inmates with

Figure 2-5. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison population, by highest
educational attainment: 1992 and 2003
Average score
500
Prose

350

Document

300

286 282
270 270
228
205

200

277 280

279

264

255 260

251

250

Quantitative

235

267*

259 263

250 255

247
235

229 231
215

199

223

198

195 192

184

150
0

Less than
high
school

Some GED/high
High
Posthigh
school
school secondary
school equivalency graduate

Less than
high
school

Some GED/high
High
Posthigh
school
school secondary
school equivalency graduate
Educational attainment
1992

Less than
high
school

Some GED/high
High
Posthigh
school
school secondary
school equivalency graduate

2003

*Significantly different from 1992.
NOTE: Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (3 percent in 1992 and 1 percent in
2003) are excluded from this figure. Postsecondary includes any education beyond high school.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey and 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

16

Chapter 2: Changes in the Prison Population and Prisoners’ Literacy between 1992 and 2003

Figure 2-6. Percentage of the adult prison population in each prose, document, and quantitative literacy level,
by highest educational attainment: 1992 and 2003
Prose

Educational
attainment and year
Less than 1992
high school
2003
Some 1992
high school 2003

50

35

58
33

High school 1992
graduate 2003

Postsecondary

11 #
47

25

5

Some 1992
high school 2003

19 #

54
4

Less than 1992
high school
2003

15 1

31

GED/high school 1992
equivalency
2003

21

40

#

54

38

54

3

19

39

40

2

14

34

47

5

5

26

58

11

5

28

58

8

60 40 20
Percent Below Basic

0

20 40 60 80
Percent Basic and above

Postsecondary

Some 1992
high school 2003

75

31

48

30

9

34

55

5

33

60

1
#
1
2

19

31

46

15

28

54

3

63

11

5 21

2003

5

80

60 40 20
Percent Below Basic

22

2

0

27

4

65

20 40 60 80
Percent Basic and above

3
100

21 5 #

64

29

7 1

62

30

8#

29

47

23

53

49
41

1992

21

2003

Below Basic

41

22

16 7 1

74

High school 1992
graduate 2003

80

14 #

Quantitative

GED/high school 1992
equivalency
2003

Postsecondary

15 1

30

1992

100

Educational
attainment and year
Less than 1992
high school
2003

29

28

High school 1992
graduate 2003

2003

55
56

GED/high school 1992
equivalency
2003

2

1992

80

Document

Educational
attainment and year

60 40 20
Percent Below Basic
Basic

33

16 2

34

22

38

15

44
0

23

1

3
33

8
36

5

20 40 60 80
Percent Basic and above

Intermediate

100

Proficient

# Rounds to zero.
NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (3 percent in 1992 and 1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this figure. Postsecondary includes any education beyond high school.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey and 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

17

Literacy Behind Bars

Gender
The average prose and quantitative literacy of incarcerated men increased between 1992 and 2003 (figure
2-7).There were no statistically significant changes in
the average literacy of incarcerated women on any of
the three scales.10
Between 1992 and 2003, the percentage of male
inmates with Below Basic literacy declined from 22 to
17 percent on the prose scale, from 22 to 15 percent
on the document scale, and from 49 to 39 percent on
the quantitative scale (figure 2-8).
There were no statistically significant differences in
average prose, document, and quantitative literacy
between male and female prison inmates in 2003
(figure 2-7).

Figure 2-7. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison
population, by gender: 1992 and 2003
Average score
500

Prose

Document

350

300

250

249

259

257*
244

243 249 242 249

18

250*
237

235
221

200

150
0

Male

Female

Male Female
Gender
1992

10 The sample of female prison inmates was smaller than the sample of male prison inmates, reflecting the fact that fewer women
than men are incarcerated in state and federal prisons. Because the
sample was smaller, standard errors were larger, and differences that
look large were not necessarily statistically significant.The fact that
a difference is not statistically significant does not necessarily mean
that there was no difference in literacy between 1992 and 2003 for
female inmates; rather, it means that we cannot be 95 percent certain that the difference we see in the sample would hold for the
population of female prison inmates as a whole.

Quantitative

Male

Female

2003

*Significantly different from 1992.
NOTE: Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not
be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (3 percent in 1992 and 1
percent in 2003) are excluded from this figure.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for
Education Statistics, 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey and 2003 National Assessment of Adult
Literacy.

Chapter 2: Changes in the Prison Population and Prisoners’ Literacy between 1992 and 2003

Figure 2-8. Percentage of the adult prison population in each prose, document, and quantitative literacy level,
by gender: 1992 and 2003
Prose

Document
Gender and year

Gender and year
Male

Female

1992
2003

22

40

35

17*

39

41*

1992
2003

25

39

34

80

49

9
60 40 20
Percent Below Basic

0

3

Male
4

3
42

20 40 60 80
Percent Basic and above

Female
1

1992
2003

22

33

15*

35

1992
2003

22

33

15

80

100

60 40 20
Percent Below Basic

35
0

42

3

48*
42

2
3

49

20 40 60 80
Percent Basic and above

2
100

Quantitative
Gender and year
Male

Female

49

1992
2003

27

47
60 40 20
Percent Below Basic

Below Basic

Basic

16

39*

59

1992
2003
80

32

39*

12 2

38
0

3
20* 2

15 1

20 40 60 80
Percent Basic and above

Intermediate

100

Proficient

*Significantly different from 1992.
NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (3 percent in 1992 and 1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this figure.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey and 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

19

Literacy Behind Bars

Age

On all three scales, a lower percentage of prison
inmates in the 25 to 39 age group had Below Basic
literacy and a higher percentage had Intermediate literacy in 2003 than in 1992 (figure 2-10).

The average prose, document, and quantitative literacy of prison inmates in the 25 to 39 age group
increased between 1992 and 2003 (figure 2-9). The
25 to 38 age group was the largest age group in the
prison population in both 1992 and 2003, but the
percentage of the incarcerated population in this age
group fell from 58 percent in 1992 to 52 percent in
2003 (table 2-1). There were no statistically significant changes in average literacy among inmates in
the 16 to 24 or 40 and older age groups.

In 2003, incarcerated adults who were 40 years old
or older had lower average prose and document literacy than incarcerated adults who were 25 to 39
years old (figure 2-9).

Figure 2-9. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison population, by age:
1992 and 2003
Average score
500
Prose

350

Document

Quantitative

300

250

251 255

260*
247

250 252

250 248

254*
242

238 240

236

252*

246
231

241 245

200

150
0

16–24

25–39

40 or older

16–24

25–39

40 or older

16–24

25–39

40 or older

Age
1992

2003

*Significantly different from 1992.
NOTE: Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (3 percent in 1992 and 1 percent in
2003) are excluded from this figure.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey and 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

20

Chapter 2: Changes in the Prison Population and Prisoners’ Literacy between 1992 and 2003

Figure 2-10. Percentage of the adult prison population in each prose, document, and quantitative literacy level,
by age: 1992 and 2003
Age and year
16–24

25–39

40 or older

1992
2003

Prose
18

45

19

35

38

3

40

24
13*

40

1992
2003

21

40

36

4

20

40

37

3

60 40 20
Percent Below Basic

37

0

35

3

25–39

45*

3

20 40 60 80
Percent Basic and above

25–39

40 or older

40 or older

1992
2003

14

37

23

1992
2003

28

33

11*

60 40 20
Percent Below Basic

37
0

47

3

47

2

42

33
30

21

1992
2003

48

36

14 2

43

37

18

1992
2003

52

31

36*

1992
2003
80

33

1992
2003

80

100

17

3

53*
37

2
5

41

1*

20 40 60 80
Percent Basic and above

100

Quantitative

Age and year
16–24

16–24

4

1992
2003

80

Document

Age and year

15 3
20* 2

46

30

19 5

42

35

20

60 40 20
Percent Below Basic

Below Basic

42*

Basic

0

2

2

20 40 60 80
Percent Basic and above

Intermediate

100

Proficient

*Significantly different from 1992.
NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (3 percent in 1992 and 1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this figure.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey and 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

21

Literacy Behind Bars

Language Spoken Before Starting School

English before starting school and had Intermediate
literacy increased from 38 to 44 percent on the prose
scale, 44 to 50 percent on the document scale, and 16
to 21 percent on the quantitative scale.

Average prose and quantitative literacy increased
between 1992 and 2003 for prison inmates who
spoke only English before starting school (figure 211). There were no statistically significant changes in
average literacy for inmates who spoke English and
another language before starting school or for inmates
who spoke only a language other than English.

The percentage of prison inmates who spoke English
and another language before starting school and had
Below Basic literacy decreased from 32 to 15 percent
on the prose scale (figure 2-12).
In 2003, prison inmates who spoke only English or
English and another language before starting school
had higher average prose, document, and quantitative
literacy than prison inmates who spoke only a language other than English before starting school (figure 2-11).

The percentage of prison inmates who spoke only
English before starting school and had Below Basic literacy decreased from 19 to 13 percent on the prose
scale, 21 to 13 percent on the document scale, and 48
to 37 percent on the quantitative scale (figure 2-12).
The percentage of prison inmates who spoke only

Figure 2-11. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison population, by language spoken before starting school: 1992 and 2003
Average score
500
Prose

350

Document

Quantitative

300

250

252

261*

255

246 251

238

242

252*

250
237

239 243
219

213 210

211 207

197

200

150
0

English only English and other

Other only

English only English and other

Other only

English only English and other

Other only

Language
1992

2003

*Significantly different from 1992.
NOTE: Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (3 percent in 1992 and 1 percent in
2003) are excluded from this figure.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey and 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

22

Chapter 2: Changes in the Prison Population and Prisoners’ Literacy between 1992 and 2003

Figure 2-12. Percentage of the adult prison population in each prose, document, and quantitative literacy level,
by language spoken before starting school: 1992 and 2003
Prose

Language and year
English only

1992
2003

Other only

1992
2003
80

19

40

38

13*

40

44*

32

English 1992
and other 2003

37
15*

26

43

47

34

51

30

60 40 20
Percent Below Basic

0

Document

Language and year
3

5
39

1992
2003

21

English 1992
and other 2003

20

English only

3

3

18 1
Other only

18 2

20 40 60 80
Percent Basic and above

80

1992
2003

48

English 1992
and other 2003

48

Other only

33

37*

35

50*

37

40

37

43

30

40

33

60 40 20
Percent Below Basic

0

4
2
2

49
26
26

2

1
1

20 40 60 80
Percent Basic and above

100

Basic

16

39
20

60

Below Basic

21* 2

32

70

60 40 20
Percent Below Basic

16 3

40*

44

1992
2003
80

12

44

Quantitative

Language and year
English only

13*

1992
2003

100

32

9 2

30*
0

4
16 1

10 1

20 40 60 80
Percent Basic and above

Intermediate

100

Proficient

*Significantly different from 1992.
NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (3 percent in 1992 and 1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this figure.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey and 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

23

Literacy Behind Bars

Parents’ Highest Level of Educational
Attainment

a decrease in the percentage of inmates with Below
Basic quantitative literacy whose parents completed
some high school.

Figure 2-13 shows prison inmates’ average levels of
prose, document, and quantitative literacy by their
parents’ level of educational attainment. There were
no statistically significant changes in the average literacy of inmates in any of the categories of parents’
educational attainment except for an increase in
quantitative literacy for inmates whose parents had
some high school education.

In 2003, prison inmates whose parents had attended
some high school (but had not received a high school
diploma or a GED/high school equivalency certificate) had higher average prose, document, and quantitative literacy than prison inmates whose parents
had not attended any high school (figure 2-13).
Prison inmates whose parents had postsecondary
education had higher average prose, document, and
quantitative literacy than prison inmates whose parents ended their education with a high school diploma or a GED/high school equivalency certificate.

Figure 2-14 shows the distribution of prison inmates
by their literacy level and their parents’ level of educational attainment.There were no statistically significant differences between 1992 and 2003, except for

Figure 2-13. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison population, by parents’ highest educational attainment: 1992 and 2003
Average score
500
Prose

350

Document

Quantitative

300

250

248

258

256 258

268 271

268
247

237 234

231 232

251 249

260

262 263

252*

236

236

230

240

248

219
200

150
0

Less than
Some
High school
high school high school graduate1

Postsecondary

Less than
Some
High school
high school high school graduate1

Postsecondary

Less than
Some
High school
high school high school graduate1

Postsecondary

Parents’ educational attainment
1992

2003

*Significantly different from 1992.
1High school graduate category includes GED and high school equivalency.
NOTE: Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (3 percent in 1992 and 1 percent in
2003) are excluded from this figure. Postsecondary includes any education beyond high school.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey and 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

24

Chapter 2: Changes in the Prison Population and Prisoners’ Literacy between 1992 and 2003

Figure 2-14. Percentage of the adult prison population in each prose, document, and quantitative literacy level,
by parents’ highest educational attainment: 1992 and 2003
Prose

Parents' educational
attainment and year
Less than 1992
high school 2003

31

35

30

31

43

3

26

1

Some 1992
high school 2003

21

42

35

2

17

38

41

5

High school 1992
graduate1 2003

16

41

40

3

14

40

43

3

1992

13

Postsecondary

2003
80

33

60 40 20
Percent Below Basic

47

36

7
0

Document

Parents' educational
attainment and year

7

53

33

27

35

36

2

Some 1992
high school 2003

26

35

36

3

47

2

High school 1992
graduate1 2003

16

32

49

3

13

37

1992

8

2003

8

80

60 40 20
Percent Below Basic

26

60

32
0

49

58

20 40 60 80
Percent Basic and above

1
6
2
100

Quantitative
58

27

49
52

High school 1992
graduate1 2003

46

13 2

38
31

37*

38
35

39

17

3
2

24

6

37

30

40

Basic

22

1

32

0

14 3

19

2003

60 40 20
Percent Below Basic

13 1

41

1992

Below Basic

3

35

100

Some 1992
high school 2003

80

35

17

Postsecondary

Parents' educational
attainment and year

Postsecondary

30

4

20 40 60 80
Percent Basic and above

Less than 1992
high school 2003

Less than 1992
high school 2003

26

5

20 40 60 80
Percent Basic and above

Intermediate

100

Proficient

*Significantly different from 1992.
1High school graduate category includes GED and high school equivalency.
NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (3 percent in 1992 and 1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this figure. Postsecondary includes any education beyond high school.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey and 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

25

Literacy Behind Bars

Summary
The prison population was larger, older, and better
educated in 2003 than in 1992. Average prose and
quantitative literacy was higher among prison
inmates in 2003 than it was among inmates in 1992.
More prison inmates had Intermediate prose, document, and quantitative literacy in 2003 than in 1992,
and fewer had Below Basic prose, document, and
quantitative literacy.
Between 1992 and 2003, average prose and quantitative literacy levels increased for prison inmates who
were Black, male, or in the 25 to 39 age group.
Average document literacy increased for inmates who
were Black or in the 25 to 39 age group. Average
prose and quantitative literacy levels also increased for
prison inmates who spoke only English before starting school, and average quantitative literacy levels

26

increased for Hispanic inmates.Among all the demographic, educational attainment, and language background groups examined in this chapter, there were
no decreases in average literacy on any of the three
scales between 1992 and 2003.
In 2003, White prison inmates had higher average
prose, document, and quantitative literacy than Black
and Hispanic prison inmates. Prison inmates who
were 40 or older had lower average prose and document literacy than inmates who were 16 to 24 or 25
to 39 years old. Prison inmates who spoke English
before starting school had higher average literacy on
all three scales than inmates who did not speak any
English before starting school. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy increased or did not
change significantly among prison inmates with each
increasing level of education for them or their parents.

3

CHAPTER THREE
Total Prison and Household
Populations
Race/Ethnicity

Comparing the Prison and Household
Populations

T

he 2003 adult prison and household populations differed in many characteristics.A higher percentage of prison inmates were Black
or Hispanic and a lower percentage were White than
adults living in households (table 3-1). Compared
with adults living in households, a higher percentage
of prison inmates were male (94 percent versus
48 percent), a lower percentage were age 40 or older
(32 percent versus 56 percent), and a lower percentage spoke only a language other than English as children (9 percent versus 13 percent). A lower percentage of prison inmates than adults living in households
completed any postsecondary education (22 percent
versus 51 percent) and a lower percentage of the parents of prison inmates than the parents of adults living in households completed any education beyond
high school (33 percent versus 42 percent). A higher
percentage of prison inmates than adults living in
households had been diagnosed with a learning disability (17 percent versus 6 percent), but there was no
measurable difference between the percentage of
adults in prisons and households who reported that
their overall health was poor or fair.A lower percentage of prison inmates than adults living in households
reported having served in the military (10 percent
versus 13 percent) (table 3-1).

Highest Level of Educational
Attainment
Gender
Age
Language Spoken Before
Starting School
Parents’ Highest Level of
Educational Attainment
Summary

27

Literacy Behind Bars

Table 3-1. Percentage of the adult prison and
household populations in selected
groups: 2003
Characteristic
Prison
Race/ethnicity
White
32
Black
46
Hispanic
18
Other
5
Gender
Male
94
Female
6
Highest educational attainment
Still in high school
†
Less than high school
9
Some high school
28
GED/high school equivalency
28
High school graduate
13
Postsecondary
22
Age
16–24
16
25–39
52
40+
32
Language spoken before starting school
English only
85
English and other
6
Other only
9
Parents’ highest educational attainment
Less than high school
13
Some high school
13
GED/high school equivalency/
high school graduate
41
Postsecondary
33
Veteran’s status
Veteran
10
Not a veteran
90
Self-reported health
Poor
4
Fair
11
Good
22
Very good
35
Excellent
28
Learning disability diagnosis
Yes
17
No
84

Household
71*
11*
12*
6
48*
52*
3*
6*
10*
5*
26*
51*
17
27*
56*
81*
6
13*
18*
9*
31*
42*
13*
87*
4
11
24*
36
26
6*
94*

†Not applicable.
*Significantly different from prison population.
NOTE:Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.Adults are defined as people 16 years of
age and older living in prisons or households.Adults who could not be interviewed due to language
spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent of the prison sample and 3 percent of the
household sample in 2003) are excluded from this table.The “Other”category includes Asians,
Pacific Islanders, Native Hawaiians, American Indians, Alaska Natives, and multi-racial adults.All
adults of Hispanic origin are classified as Hispanic, regardless of race.Black includes African
American, and Hispanic includes Latino.Postsecondary includes any education beyond high school.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for
Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

28

The analyses in this chapter examine how literacy
levels differed in 2003 between adults living in
households and prison inmates. The first analyses in
the chapter compare average literacy differences
among the total population in each group. However,
because of the differences in the characteristics of the
two groups, it is also meaningful to look at differences in literacy for groups within each population
with the same background characteristics (demographics, educational attainment, and language background). The majority of this chapter focuses on
those analyses.

Chapter 3: Comparing the Prison and Household Populations

Total Prison and Household Populations
Prison inmates had lower average prose, document,
and quantitative literacy than adults living in households (figure 3-1).
A higher percentage of prison inmates than adults
living in households had Below Basic quantitative literacy (39 percent compared with 21 percent), but the
differences in the percentage of prison inmates and
adults living in households who had Below Basic

Figure 3-1. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison
and household populations: 2003
Average score
500

prose or document literacy were not statistically significant (figure 3-2).
Among prison inmates, 2 to 3 percent had Proficient
prose, document, and quantitative literacy compared
with 13 to 14 percent of adults living in households.
A lower percentage of adults in prison than adults
living in households had Intermediate document or
quantitative literacy and a higher percentage had
Basic prose, document, or quantitative literacy.

Figure 3-2. Percentage of the adult prison and
household populations in each prose,
document, and quantitative literacy
level: 2003
Literacy scale
and population

350

Prose
300

16

40

14

29*

Prison
Household

15

3

44

13*

271*

257

249

250

249

200

Document

Quantitative

150
Document
Literacy scale
Prison

35

12

22*

39

Prison
Household
80

Prose

41

283*

275*

0

Prison
Household

21*
60 40 20
Percent Below Basic

0

48

2

53*

39

20

33*

33*

13*
2
14*

20 40 60 80
Percent Basic and above

100

Quantitative
Below Basic

Basic

Intermediate

Proficient

Household

*Significantly different from prison population.
NOTE: Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons or households. Adults
who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent
of the prison sample and 3 percent of the household sample in 2003) are excluded from this figure.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for
Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

*Significantly different from prison population.
NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Adults are defined as people 16 years of
age and older living in prisons or households. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent of the prison sample and 3 percent of
the household sample in 2003) are excluded from this figure.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for
Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

29

Literacy Behind Bars

Race/Ethnicity
Incarcerated White adults had lower average prose
literacy than White adults living in households (figure 3-3). This finding was reversed for Blacks and
Hispanics: Black and Hispanic prison inmates had
higher average prose literacy than Black and
Hispanic adults living in households.
White prison inmates also had lower average document and quantitative literacy than White adults living in households (figure 3-3). Among Black adults,
there was no statistically significant difference in
document or quantitative literacy between those
who were incarcerated and those who lived in
households. For Hispanic adults, those who were

incarcerated had higher document literacy than
those who lived in households.
Prison inmates are on average younger than adults
living in households, and previous studies (Kutner,
Greenberg, and Baer 2005) of the 2003 adult literacy data indicated that a relationship exists between
age and literacy. Given this finding, analyses were
conducted to compare the prose literacy of the
prison and household populations by both race/ethnicity and age group.
As shown in table 3-2, within the same age group
either White prison inmates had lower average prose
literacy than White adults living in households or
there was no statistically significant difference

Figure 3-3. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison and household populations, by race/ethnicity: 2003
Average score
500
Prose

350

300

Document

297*

289*

282*

274
252

250

Quantitative

262

271

270

265

243*

255
240 238

232

279*

274
254

236

237 238

231 233

Black

Hispanic

224*

216*
200

150
0

White

Black

Hispanic

Other

White

Black
Hispanic
Race/ethnicity
Prison

Other

White

Other

Household

*Significantly different from prison population.
NOTE: Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons or households. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent of the prison
sample and 3 percent of the household sample in 2003) are excluded from this figure.The “Other”category includes Asians, Pacific Islanders, Native Hawaiians, American Indians, Alaska Natives, and multi-racial
adults. All adults of Hispanic origin are classified as Hispanic, regardless of race. Black includes African American, and Hispanic includes Latino.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

30

Chapter 3: Comparing the Prison and Household Populations

between the two groups. Black prison inmates in the
40 and older age group had higher average prose literacy than Black adults living in households, but the
difference between Black prison inmates and Black
adults living in households was not statistically significant in the 16 to 24 and 25 to 39 age groups.Among
Hispanics, the difference in average prose literacy
between incarcerated adults and adults living in
households was not statistically significant in the 16 to
24 and 40 and older age groups. In the 25 to 39 age
group, Hispanic adults in prison had higher average
prose literacy than Hispanic adults in households.
The literacy of prison inmates by date of incarceration and race/ethnicity was also examined. Black
inmates who were incarcerated prior to 2002 had
higher prose literacy than Black adults living in
households, but Black inmates who were incarcerated
in 2002 or later had prose literacy that was not statistically significantly different from that of Black adults
living in households (table 3-3).
An examination of the distribution by literacy level
of prison inmates and adults living in households
shows that 3 to 7 percent of White prison inmates
had Proficient prose, document, and quantitative literacy, compared with 15 to 17 percent of White
adults living in households (figure 3-4).A lower percentage of White adults living in households than
White adults in prisons had Basic prose and quantitative literacy.
A lower percentage of Black prison inmates than
Black adults living in households had Below Basic
prose literacy (figure 3-4).

Table 3-2. Average prose literacy scores of the adult
prison and household populations, by
race/ethnicity and age: 2003
Race/ethnicity and age

Prison

White
16–24
25–39
40+
Black
16–24
25–39
40+
Hispanic
16–24
25–39
40+

Household

285
275
267

287
303*
283*

238
260
248

249
253
234*

260
229
218

235
213*
205

*Significantly different from prison population.
NOTE: Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons or households. Adults
who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent of the prison sample and 3 percent of the household sample in 2003) are excluded from this
table. All adults of Hispanic origin are classified as Hispanic, regardless of race. Black includes
African American, and Hispanic includes Latino.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for
Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Table 3-3. Average prose literacy scores of the adult
prison and household populations, by
race/ethnicity and date incarcerated:
2003
Race/ethnicity
White
Black

Incarcerated
prior to 2002
275*
255*

Incarcerated
2002 or later
273*
249

Household
289
243

*Significantly different from household population.
NOTE: Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons or households. Adults
who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent of the prison sample and 3 percent of the household sample in 2003) are excluded from this
table. Because of sample size, theses analyses are not reported for the Hispanic population. Black
includes African American.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for
Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

A lower percentage of Hispanic prison inmates than
Hispanic adults living in households had Below Basic
prose or document literacy.

31

Literacy Behind Bars

Figure 3-4.

Percentage of the adult prison and household populations in each prose, document, and quantitative literacy level, by race/ethnicity: 2003
Prose

Race/ethnicity
and population
White

Prison

9

Household

Black

Hispanic

Other

Prison

Prison

35
45*

35
29

Prison

11
13
60 40 20
Percent Below Basic

28

0

2

46

3

Other

Prison

Prison

14
11
60 40 20
Percent Below Basic

31
24
0

1

40

36
26*

Household

40

35

23

3
15*

2

39
33

2
5*

52
54

4
11

20 40 60 80
Percent Basic and above

100

Quantitative

Prison

19

45

13

33

32*

39

Prison

49

37

13 1

Household

47

36

15 2

Prison

53

32

13 2

Household

50

29

17* 4

34

Prison

41

23

Household
80

64
58
40

36*

80

Household

Hispanic

24

100

Race/ethnicity
and population

Black

19

Other

10

20 40 60 80
Percent Basic and above

White

Prison

Household

45

27

8 19

Household

Hispanic

4

41
32

Black

2

22

6

Household

1

31

Prison

White

17*
37

43

Household

7

51
47

24*

Household

52

25*

15

Household

80

32

7

Document

Race/ethnicity
and population

60 40 20
Percent Below Basic

Below Basic

Basic

35
0

4
17*

24

1

32

11*

20 40 60 80
Percent Basic and above

Intermediate

100

Proficient

*Significantly different from prison population.
NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons or households. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent of the prison sample and 3 percent of the household sample in 2003) are excluded from this figure.The ‘Other’ category includes Asians, Pacific Islanders, Native Hawaiians,
American Indians, Alaska Natives, and multi-racial adults. All adults of Hispanic origin are classified as Hispanic, regardless of race. Black includes African American, and Hispanic includes Latino.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

32

Chapter 3: Comparing the Prison and Household Populations

Highest Level of Educational Attainment
Among adult who ended their education before
starting high school (classified as “less than high
school” in the figure), prison inmates had higher
average literacy on all three scales than adults living
in households (figure 3-5). Prison inmates with a
GED/high school equivalency certificate had higher average prose literacy than adults living in households with a GED/high school equivalency certificate. For all other levels of educational attainment,
either prison inmates had lower average prose, document, and quantitative literacy than adults living in
households with the same level of educational

attainment or there was no statistically significant
difference between the two groups (figure 3-5).
Among adults who ended their education before
starting high school, a lower percentage of adults in
prison than adults living in households had Below
Basic prose and document literacy (figure 3-6).
Among adults with postsecondary education, a lower
percentage of adults in prison than adults in households had Proficient prose, document, and quantitative
literacy and a higher percentage had Basic literacy on
all three scales and Below Basic literacy on the quantitative scale (figure 3-6).

Figure 3-5. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison and household populations, by highest educational attainment: 2003
Average score
500
Prose

350

Quantitative
310*

302*

300

293*

282
270

250

200

Document

235

280

260* 264 262

260 257 255 258

247
223

231*

198

192
160*

269*

263 266

231 230

228

199

267

166*

159*

150
0

Less than
high
school

Some GED/high
High
Posthigh
school
school secondary
school equivalency graduate

Less than
high
school

Some GED/high
High
Posthigh
school
school secondary
school equivalency graduate
Educational attainment
Prison

Less than
high
school

Some GED/high
High
Posthigh
school
school secondary
school equivalency graduate

Household

*Significantly different from prison population.
NOTE: Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons or households. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent of the prison
sample and 3 percent of the household sample in 2003) are excluded from this figure. Postsecondary includes any education beyond high school.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

33

Literacy Behind Bars

Figure 3-6. Percentage of the adult prison and household populations in each prose, document, and quantitative literacy level, by highest educational attainment: 2003
Educational
attainment
and population
Less than Prison
high Houseschool hold
Some Prison
high Houseschool hold

58

31

79*
25

54

35
5

Post- Prison
secondary Household

22

54

45

14

34

13

39

5

28

0

4

58
54

Post- Prison
secondary Household

8
23*

20 40 60 80
Percent Basic and above

48
36
33
30

53

15

28

54

13

29

52

0

#
2*

5

60

27

4 15*
80 60 40 20
Percent Below Basic

30
33

13*

5

100

100

Educational
attainment
and population

2
4
3
5

65
63

3
19*

20 40 60 80
Percent Basic and above

100

Quantitative

Less than Prison
high Houseschool hold

74

21 5 #

84

Some Prison
high Houseschool hold

12* #
3
62
53

GED/high
school Prison
equiva- Houselency hold

30

8 #

33

13* 1

23

53

26

High Prison
school Housegraduate hold

34
24*

42*

15

Below Basic

Basic

28
22

0

28*

1
3

3
29*

44

7*
80 60 40 20
Percent Below Basic

23

43

41

Post- Prison
secondary Household
100

22
30

High Prison
school Housegraduate hold

5

44

4 19*
80 60 40 20
Percent Below Basic

3

14 #

30
18* 9 #

GED/high
school Prison
equiva- Houselency hold

3

42
47

56
72*

Some Prison
high Houseschool hold

#

1*

38

11

High Prison
school Housegraduate hold

21

42*

Document

Less than Prison
high Houseschool hold

11 #
#
4*

17*

GED/high
school Prison
equiva- Houselency hold

100

Educational
attainment
and population

Prose

36
43

5
5
22*

20 40 60 80
Percent Basic and above

Intermediate

100

Proficient

# Rounds to zero.
*Significantly different from prison population.
NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons or households. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent of the prison sample and 3 percent of the household sample in 2003) are excluded from this figure. Postsecondary includes any education beyond high school.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

34

Chapter 3: Comparing the Prison and Household Populations

Highest level of educational attainment and
race/ethnicity
In this section, literacy results by highest level of educational attainment are reported separately for Black
and White adults. Comparisons are made between
adults living in households and prison inmates.
Results are not reported separately for Hispanic adults
by highest level of educational attainment because
there were not enough Hispanic adults in the prison
sample to support reporting at this level of detail.
Among White adults who did not graduate from high
school or ended their education with a GED/high
school equivalency certificate or a high school diploma, there was no statistically significant different
between the prose, document, and quantitative

literacy of those adults who lived in households and
those adults who were incarcerated (figure 3-7).
However, among Black adults who did not graduate
from high school or ended their education with a
GED/high school equivalency certificate or a high
school diploma, Black prison inmates had higher
average prose literacy than Black adults living in
households (figure 3-8). Among Black adults who
did not graduate from high school or ended their
education with a GED/high school equivalency certification, Black prison inmates also had higher document and quantitative literacy than Black adults living in households.A lower percentage of Black adults
in prison than Black adults in households had Below
Basic prose and document literacy (table 3-4).

Figure 3-7. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the White adult prison and household
populations, by highest educational attainment: 2003
Average score
500
Prose

350

Document

Quantitative
318*

310*
300
275 270
250

300*

295
279

270

243
231

267 266
239

272

296
275 279

278

277 279

264
240 235

229

200

150
0

Less than GED/high High school
Postor some
school
graduate secondary
high school equivalency

Less than GED/high High school
Postor some
school
graduate secondary
high school equivalency

Less than GED/high High school
Postor some
school
graduate secondary
high school equivalency

Educational attainment
Prison

Household

*Significantly different from prison population.
NOTE: Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons or households.Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent of the prison
sample and 3 percent of the household sample in 2003) are excluded from this figure.Postsecondary includes any education beyond high school.
SOURCE: U.S.Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

35

Literacy Behind Bars

Among White adults who had at least some education beyond high school, those living in households
had higher literacy on all three scales than those who
were incarcerated (figure 3-7). Additionally, a higher
percentage of White adults who had at least some
postsecondary education and lived in households
than adults with the same level of education who

lived in prison had Proficient literacy on all three
scales (table 3-4). Among Black adults who had at
least some education beyond high school, there were
no differences in average literacy between those who
lived in households and those who were incarcerated (figure 3-8).

Figure 3-8. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the Black adult prison and household
populations, by highest educational attainment: 2003
Average score
500
Prose

350

Document

Quantitative

300
271 268

270
255
250

233*

229
200

240*

254

243
232*

232

221
200*

266 266

255 261

254

232*

227 232

213
196*

189*

150
0

Less than GED/high High school
Postor some
school
graduate secondary
high school equivalency

Less than GED/high High school
Postor some
school
graduate secondary
high school equivalency

Less than GED/high High school
Postor some
school
graduate secondary
high school equivalency

Educational attainment
Prison

Household

*Significantly different from prison population.
NOTE: Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons or households. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent of the prison
sample and 3 percent of the household sample in 2003) are excluded from this figure. Postsecondary includes any education beyond high school.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

36

Chapter 3: Comparing the Prison and Household Populations

Table 3-4. Percentage of the Black and White adult prison and household populations in each prose, document,
and quantitative literacy level, by highest educational attainment: 2003
Population, literacy scale,
and educational attainment
White adults
Prose
Less than or some high school
GED/high school equivalency
High school graduate
Postsecondary
Document
Less than or some high school
GED/high school equivalency
High school graduate
Postsecondary
Quantitative
Less than or some high school
GED/high school equivalency
High school graduate
Postsecondary
Black adults
Prose
Less than or some high school
GED/high school equivalency
High school graduate
Postsecondary
Document
Less than or some high school
GED/high school equivalency
High school graduate
Postsecondary
Quantitative
Less than or some high school
GED/high school equivalency
High school graduate
Postsecondary

Below Basic
Prison Household

Prison

Basic
Household

Intermediate
Prison Household

Proficient
Prison Household

20
3
11
5

34
5
8
2

49
35
27
19

40
40
37
15

30
58
51
61

24
52
51
56

1
4
12
15

2
3
4
27*

18
2
9
3

32
9
10
2

44
27
19
18

32
26
27
12

38
69
65
74

34
60
57
63

#
2
7
6

3
5
6
23*

47
12
20
5

50
15
17
4

37
55
39
38

33
45
42
24

15
32
36
49

15
37
35
46

1
2
5
8

2
4
6
26*

29
5
14
4

54*
23
23
10

55
39
44
40

36
63
49
37

16
53
41
53

10
15*
27
49

#
3
1
3

#
#
1
5

33
9
20
7

52*
24
24
8

44
38
35
38

31*
44
42
30

23
52
43
53

17
33
33
59

#
1
2
1

#
#
#
3

70
31
54
24

76
53
52
24

26
51
31
47

20
40
37
46

4
17
14
26

5
7
10
27

#
1
1
2

#
#
#
3

# Rounds to zero.
*Significantly different from prison population.
NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons or households. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent of the prison sample and 3 percent of the household sample in 2003) are excluded from this table. Postsecondary includes any education beyond high school.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

37

Literacy Behind Bars

Gender
Male and female prison inmates had lower average
literacy on all three scales than adults of the same
gender living in households (figure 3-9). A lower
percentage of adult men and women in prisons had
Proficient prose, document, and quantitative literacy
than men and women living in households (figure 310).A higher percentage of men and women in prisons than men and women living in households had
Below Basic quantitative literacy.

Figure 3-10. Percentage of the adult prison and
household populations in each prose,
document, and quantitative literacy
level, by gender: 2003

Male

Female

Prison
Household

17

39

15

29*

Prison
Household

9

80

Figure 3-9. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison
and household populations, by gender:
2003
Average score
500

Prose

Document

Male

Prison
Household

15

Prison
Household

15

80

300

287*

277*
259

250

272*

269*
249

279*

249

237

Female
Male Female
Gender

60 40 20
Percent Below Basic

Male

Female

Household

14*

20 40 60 80
Percent Basic and above

48

100

22
0

2

51

13*

35

39
21*
47

Prison
Household

22*
60 40 20
Percent Below Basic

Below Basic
*Significantly different from prison population.
NOTE: Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons or households. Adults
who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent
of the prison sample and 3 percent of the household sample in 2003) are excluded from this figure.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for
Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

38

1

49

2

54

13*

20 40 60 80
Percent Basic and above

100

Quantitative

Prison
Household

80
Prison

46

23*

11

150
Female

42

35

14

Gender and
population
Male

Male

13*

250

200

0

43

28
0

4

Document

Gender and
population

Female

273*

60 40 20
Percent Below Basic

41

49

12

Quantitative

350

257

Prose

Gender and
population

Basic

0

39

20

2

31*

33*

38

15 1

35

32*

16*

11*

20 40 60 80
Percent Basic and above

Intermediate

100

Proficient

*Significantly different from prison population.
NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Adults are defined as people 16 years of
age and older living in prisons or households. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent of the prison sample and 3 percent of
the household sample in 2003) are excluded from this figure.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for
Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Chapter 3: Comparing the Prison and Household Populations

Age

a higher percentage of adult prison inmates had
Below Basic literacy than adults living in households
in the same age group (figure 3-11). Among adults
who were age 40 and older, 20 percent of adult
prison inmates had Below Basic prose literacy compared with 15 percent of adults living in households
(figure 3-12).

In every age group, adult prison inmates had lower
average prose, document, and quantitative literacy
than adults living in households (figure 3-11).A lower
percentage of adults in prison had Proficient literacy on
all three scales than adults in the same age group in
households (figure 3-12). On the quantitative scale,

Figure 3-11. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison and household populations, by age: 2003
Average score
500
Prose

350

300

284*

273*
255

Document

260

250

252

248

292*

283*

274*

272*

Quantitative

281*

275*
264*

254
240

246

252

245

200

150
0

16–24

25–39

40 or older

16–24

25–39

40 or older

16–24

25–39

40 or older

Age
Prison

Household

*Significantly different from prison population.
NOTE: Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons or households. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent of the prison
sample and 3 percent of the household sample in 2003) are excluded from this figure.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

39

Literacy Behind Bars

Figure 3-12. Percentage of the adult prison and household populations in each prose, document, and quantitative literacy level, by age: 2003
Prose

Age and population
16–24

25–39

40 or older

Prison
Household

19

80

32

13

Prison
Household

Prison
Household

38

11

25*

20

40

15*
60 40 20
Percent Below Basic

40

4

48

9*

40

12

30*
0

Document

Age and population

45
45

16–24

3

25–39

18*
37

43*

3

40 or older

12*

20 40 60 80
Percent Basic and above

25–39

40 or older

11

60 40 20
Percent Below Basic

24*
0

53
56

37

15

2
12*

33

21

Prison
Household

47
57

8 19*

80

43
23*
36

Prison
Household

18 2

37

31*

31*

42
23*
60 40 20
Percent Below Basic
Basic

37

42
17*

Prison
Household

Below Basic

Prison
Household

37

10 22*

2
17*

41
50*

1
11*

20 40 60 80
Percent Basic and above

100

Quantitative

Prison
Household

80

14

100

Age and population
16–24

Prison
Household

0

20

2

35*

35

20

32

32*

9*

17*
2
13*

20 40 60 80
Percent Basic and above

Intermediate

100

Proficient

*Significantly different from prison population.
NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons or households. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent of the prison sample and 3 percent of the household sample in 2003) are excluded from this figure.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

40

Chapter 3: Comparing the Prison and Household Populations

Language Spoken Before Starting School

tive literacy between prison inmates and adults living
in households.

Among adults who spoke only English before starting school, those who were in prison had lower average prose, document, and quantitative literacy than
those who lived in households (figure 3-13). Among
adults who spoke English and another language
before starting school, those who were in prison had
lower average prose and quantitative literacy than
those who lived in households. Among adults who
spoke no English before starting school (classified as
“Other only”), there were no statistically significant
differences in average prose, document, and quantita-

Among prison inmates who spoke only English
before starting school, 2 to 3 percent had Proficient
literacy on all three scales, compared with 14 to 15
percent of adults living in households with the same
language background (figure 3-14).A lower percentage of adults in prison who spoke only English
before starting school had Intermediate prose, document, and quantitative literacy than adults living in
households with the same language background.

Figure 3-13. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison and household populations, by language spoken before starting school: 2003
Average score
500
Prose

350

300

Document

289*

283*
261

Quantitative

278*

276*

272*

264

255

251

250

252

250

243

223
207 212

235
219

210

200

150
0

English only English and other

Other only

English only English and other

Other only

English only English and other

Other only

Language
Prison

Household

*Significantly different from prison population.
NOTE: Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons or households. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent of the prison
sample and 3 percent of the household sample in 2003) are excluded from this figure.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

41

Literacy Behind Bars

Figure 3-14. Percentage of the adult prison and household populations in each prose, document, and quantitative literacy level, by language spoken before starting school: 2003

Prison
Household

13

Prison
English
and other Household

15

English only

Other only

Prison
Household
80

Language and
population

Prose

Language and
population

40

44

9* 27*

49*

43

10

47

30

18 2

48

28

21

0

3
8

Prison
English
and other Household

12

Other only

37

25*

26
32

1
6*

20 40 60 80
Percent Basic and above

100

Quantitative
37

40

21

18*

33*

35*

39

16 1

21*

38

31*

44

Prison
English
and other Household
60

Prison
Household

Below Basic

2
6

56

33

0

2
14*

49

27

40

60 40 20
Percent Below Basic

50
56*

37

11

80

Prison
Household

80

35

9* 21*

Prison
Household

100

Language and
population

Other only

13

4

20 40 60 80
Percent Basic and above

English only

Prison
Household

English only

15*
39

35

51

60 40 20
Percent Below Basic

3

Document

49*
60 40 20
Percent Below Basic
Basic

0

30

10 1

28

18*

2
15*

10*

6*

20 40 60 80
Percent Basic and above

Intermediate

100

Proficient

*Significantly different from prison population.
NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons or households. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent of the prison sample and 3 percent of the household sample in 2003) are excluded from this figure.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

42

Chapter 3: Comparing the Prison and Household Populations

Parents’ Highest Level of Educational
Attainment

level of educational attainment. Prison inmates
whose parents had some high school but did not
complete high school also had lower average quantitative literacy than adults living in households whose
parents had the same level of educational attainment.

Figure 3-15 shows the average prose, document, and
quantitative literacy of adults living in prisons and
households by their parents’ level of educational
attainment. Among adults whose parents were high
school graduates or had attained postsecondary education, prison inmates had lower average prose, document, and quantitative literacy than those adults
who lived in households whose parents had the same

Among adults whose parents were high school graduates or had postsecondary education, a lower percentage of adults in prison than adults living in
households had Proficient literacy on all three scales
(figure 3-16).

Figure 3-15. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison and household populations, by parents’ highest educational attainment: 2003
Average score
500
Prose

350

Document

305*

300*

300
278*
258 261
250

Quantitative

293*
273*

271

258
247

234

232

227

285*

256

267*

260
249

252
236 239

263
248

224

200

150
0

Less than
Some
High school
high school high school graduate1

Postsecondary

Less than
Some
High school
high school high school graduate1

Postsecondary

Less than
Some
High school
high school high school graduate1

Postsecondary

Parents' educational attainment
Prison

Household

*Significantly different from prison population.
1High school graduate category includes GED and high school equivalency.
NOTE: Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons or households. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent of the prison
sample and 3 percent of the household sample in 2003) are excluded from this figure. Postsecondary includes any education beyond high school.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

43

Literacy Behind Bars

Figure 3-16. Percentage of the adult prison and household populations in each prose, document, and quantitative literacy level, by parents’ highest educational attainment: 2003
Parents' educational
attainment
and population
Prison
Less than
high school Household

Parents' educational
attainment
and population

Prose
30

43

37

35

26
25

Prison
Less than
high school Household

1
3*

Prison
Some
high school Household

17

38

41

5

16

36

42

6

Prison
High school
graduate1 Household

14

Prison
Postsecondary Household
80

40

10*

30*

7

36

5 20*
60 40 20
Percent Below Basic

0

43
49*

3
11*

53
53

Prison
High school
graduate1 Household

13
8

23*

Prison
Postsecondary Household

8

32

100

Parents' educational
attainment
and population

35

15

60 40 20
Percent Below Basic

50

37

0

2
3

47

29

4 15*

80

36
32

2
6

49
59

1
10*

58
61

2
20*

20 40 60 80
Percent Basic and above

100

Quantitative
49

Prison
Less than
high school Household

38

46

32

Prison
Some
high school Household

37

Prison
High school
graduate1 Household

39

38

28*

18*
30

Prison
Postsecondary Household

Below Basic

35
30

17

4

20 40 60 80
Percent Basic and above

27
35

Prison
Some
high school Household

22*

80

Document

10*
60 40 20
Percent Below Basic
Basic

0

13 1
18

4*
22

38

28

41

19

35*

35*

40

26

29*

3
6
1
12*
5

41*

21*

20 40 60 80
Percent Basic and above

Intermediate

100

Proficient

*Significantly different from prison population.
1High school graduate category includes GED and high school equivalency.
NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons or households. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent of the prison sample and 3 percent of the household sample in 2003) are excluded from this figure. Postsecondary includes any education beyond high school.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

44

Chapter 3: Comparing the Prison and Household Populations

Summary
In 2003, there were demographic differences
between the adult prison and household populations.
A higher percentage of prison inmates were Black,
Hispanic, male, under age 40, and spoke only English
before starting school than adults in households.
On average, incarcerated adults had lower prose, document, and quantitative literacy than adults living in
households. Across the various demographic, educational attainment, and language background groups
examined in this chapter, adults in prison generally had
literacy that was either lower than or not statistically

different from the literacy of adults living in households. An exception was the analysis of literacy by
race/ethnicity, which showed that incarcerated Black
and Hispanic adults had higher average prose literacy
than Black and Hispanic adults living in households
and that incarcerated Hispanic adults also had higher
average document literacy than Hispanic adults living in households. However, there was no statistically significant difference in average prose literacy
between the Black and Hispanic prison and household populations in two of the three age groups
examined, but differences remained within one age
group for each racial/ethnic group.

45

4

CHAPTER FOUR
Academic Education
Vocational Education

Education and Job Training in Prison

Skill Certification
Summary

P

risons are intended to rehabilitate criminal
offenders, as well as to punish and incapacitate them. The education and training systems operating within most prisons are a key component of the rehabilitation mission of prisons.
Previous studies have shown a relationship between
participation in educational programs and recidivism rates, with inmates who attend education programs less likely to be reincarcerated after their
release (Vacca 2004).
There are many reasons why prison inmates may be
motivated to participate in education and training
programs. Among these may be a realization that
they do not have skills that will lead to employment
upon their release from prison. As one inmate said,
“I’ve never had a career. I’ve had jobs, but never had
anything that would take me anywhere. It’s scary to
come out of jail and not realize what you’re going
to do” (Clayton 2005).
This chapter describes the relationships among literacy, education, and vocational training in prison.
The analyses in the chapter discuss both the prevalence of inmate participation in education and
training programs and the relationship between literacy levels and program participation.

47

Literacy Behind Bars

Academic Education
In both 1992 and 2003, GED classes were available
in most prisons. However, because of restrictions in
Pell Grants that were implemented in 1994, higher
educational opportunities were more limited for
prison inmates in 2003 than in 1992 (Welsh 2002).
In 2003, some 43 percent of prison inmates had a
high school diploma or a GED/high school equivalency certificate when they began their current
incarceration, so helping inmates complete their high
school education is a major aim of many prison academic programs (figure 4-1).11 Among prison
inmates in 2003, some 19 percent had earned their
GED/high school equivalency certificate during
11 The

43 percent of prison inmates who had a high school diploma or a GED/high school equivalency certificate when they began
their current incarceration includes prison inmates who had higher levels of educational attainment (postsecondary education) prior
to their current incarceration.

Figure 4-1. Percentage of the adult prison population, by GED/high school diploma
attainment: 2003
Percent
100
80

43

Figure 4-2. Percentage of the adult prison population with a GED/high school equivalency certificate or high school diploma, by
expected date of release: 2003

80
65

19
5
No GED/no
No GED/no
Earned GED Earned GED/H.S.
H.S. diploma/ H.S. diploma/ during current diploma prior
not currently
currently
incarceration
to current
enrolled in
enrolled in
incarceration
academic classes academic classes
GED/H.S. diploma attainment

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.Adults are defined as people 16 years of
age and older living in prisons.Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or
cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this figure.The category
“earned GED/H.S.diploma prior to current incarceration”includes prison inmates who had higher
levels of educational attainment (postsecondary education) prior to their current incarceration.
SOURCE: U.S.Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for
Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

48

As discussed in chapter 2, prison inmates’ average
prose and quantitative literacy increased with each
increasing education level, and their document literacy increased with each increasing education level up
to a high school diploma or GED/high school
equivalency certificate (figure 2-7).

33

20
0

Having a GED/high school equivalency certificate or
a high school diploma may be particularly important
for inmates who expect to be released soon and will
need to find a job outside of prison. However, the difference in the percentage of inmates who expected to
be released in 2 years or less and had a GED/high
school equivalency certificate or high school diploma, and the percentage of inmates who expected to
be released in more than 2 years and had a GED/high
school equivalency certificate or high school diploma, was not statistically significant.(figure 4-2)

Percent
100

60
40

their current incarceration, and an additional 5 percent were currently enrolled in academic classes.

60

60

40
20
0
2 years or less
More than 2 years
Expected date of release
NOTE: Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons.Adults who could not
be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent in 2003) are
excluded from this figure.The category “earned GED/H.S.diploma prior to current incarceration”
includes prison inmates who had higher levels of educational attainment (postsecondary education) prior to their current incarceration.
SOURCE: U.S.Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for
Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Chapter 4: Education and Job Training in Prison

Prison inmates who had a high school diploma or
a GED/high school equivalency certificate (either
earned during their current incarceration or prior
to their current incarceration) had higher average
prose, document, and quantitative literacy than
inmates who were currently enrolled in academic
classes in prison but had not yet earned their
GED/high school equivalency certificate (figure 43). They also had higher average prose, document,
and quantitative literacy than inmates who were
not enrolled in any academic classes. The differences in average prose, document, and quantitative
literacy between inmates who earned their
GED/high school equivalency certificate during
their current incarceration and inmates who
entered prison with a high school diploma or

GED/high school equivalency certificate were not
statistically significant.
A lower percentage of prison inmates who had a
high school diploma or a GED/high school equivalency certificate had Below Basic prose and quantitative literacy than prison inmates who were currently
enrolled in academic classes or did not have a
GED/high school equivalency certificate and were
not enrolled in classes (figure 4-4). Similar to figure
4-3, there were no statistically significant differences
in the percentage of inmates at any of the literacy
levels between inmates who earned their high school
diploma or GED/high school equivalency certificate
prior to their current incarceration and inmates who
earned their GED/high school equivalency certificate during their current incarceration.

Figure 4-3. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison population, by
GED/high school diploma attainment: 2003
No GED/H.S. diploma

Average score
500

GED/H.S. diploma

Average score
500

350

350

300

300
273

273
262

261

266

266

250

250
228

227

223

227

217

224

200

200

150

150
0

0
Prose

Document
Literacy scale
No GED/not currently enrolled
in academic classes

Quantitative

No GED/currently enrolled
in academic classes

Prose

Earned GED during
current incarceration

Document
Literacy scale

Quantitative

Earned GED/H.S. diploma prior
to current incarceration

NOTE: Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons.Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent in 2003) are excluded
from this figure.The category “earned GED/H.S.diploma prior to current incarceration”includes prison inmates who had higher levels of educational attainment (postsecondary education) prior to their current
incarceration.
SOURCE: U.S.Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

49

Literacy Behind Bars

Vocational Education

2003). Examples of the types of vocational education
programs sometimes offered by prisons are auto
mechanics, construction trades, equipment repair,
HVAC installation and repair, culinary arts, cosmetology, and desktop publishing. The exact programs

Vocational education programs are designed to prepare prison inmates for work after their release from
prison. In 2000, some 56% of state prisons and 94%
of federal prisons offered vocational training (Harlow

Figure 4-4. Percentage of the adult prison population in each prose, document, and quantitative literacy level,
by GED/high school diploma attainment: 2003
Prose

Document
Diploma status

Diploma status
No GED/not currently
enrolled in
academic classes

33

48

19 #

No GED/not currently
enrolled in
academic classes

32

No GED/currently
enrolled in
academic classes

32

53

16 #

No GED/currently
enrolled in
academic classes

27

Earned GED during
current incarceration

5

Earned GED/H.S. diploma
prior to current
incarceration
80

35

8
60 40 20
Percent Below Basic

57

33
0

Earned GED during
current incarceration

3

53

20 40 60 80
Percent Basic and above

32

9

80

100

48

3

Earned GED/H.S. diploma
prior to current
incarceration

6

41

60 40 20
Percent Below Basic

29
0

27

#

25

#

63

59

20 40 60 80
Percent Basic and above

1

3
100

Quantitative
Diploma status
No GED/not currently
enrolled in
academic classes

65

28

No GED/currently
enrolled in
academic classes

62

32

Earned GED during
current incarceration

23

Earned GED/H.S. diploma
prior to current
incarceration

25

80

60 40 20
Percent Below Basic

Below Basic

Basic

7 #

6 #

50

44
0

25

28

2

3

20 40 60 80
Percent Basic and above

Intermediate

100

Proficient

# Rounds to zero.
NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this figure.The category “earned GED/H.S. diploma prior to current incarceration”includes prison inmates who had higher levels of educational attainment
(postsecondary education) prior to their current incarceration.
SOURCE: U.S.Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

50

Chapter 4: Education and Job Training in Prison

offered differ among prisons.As shown in figure 4-5,
during their current incarceration, 71 percent of
prison inmates had not participated in any vocational training, 11 percent participated in vocational
training programs that lasted less than 6 months, 8
percent participated in programs that lasted 6 to 12
months, and 9 percent participated in vocational
training programs that lasted more than a year. In
2003, 14 percent of inmates were on a waiting list to
participate in a vocational education program, and 10
percent were enrolled in vocational education classes
(figure 4-6).
Participation in vocational training may be particularly important for inmates who are getting close to their
release date and will need to find a job outside of
prison. However, the percentage of incarcerated adults
who expected to be released within the next 2 years
and participated in vocational training was not statistically significantly different from the percentage

Figure 4-5. Percentage of the adult prison population, by length of participation in vocational training programs: 2003
Percent
100
80

who expected to be released in over 2 years and participated in vocational training (figure 4-7).

Figure 4-6. Percentage of the adult prison population, by enrollment in vocational training: 2003
Percent
100
77

80
60
40
20
0

10

14

Currently enrolled
in classes

On a waiting list

Not enrolled and
not on waiting list

Enrollment status
NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Adults are defined as people 16 years of
age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or
cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this figure.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for
Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Figure 4-7. Percentage of the adult prison population who participated in vocational training during their current incarceration, by
expected date of release: 2003
Percent
100

71
80

60

60

40

40

20

11

8

9

0
No
participation

Less than
6-12 months
6 months
Length of participation

More than
1 year

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Adults are defined as people 16 years of
age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or
cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this figure.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for
Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

27

32

20
0
2 years or less
More than 2 years
Expected date of release
NOTE: Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not
be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent in 2003) are
excluded from this figure.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for
Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

51

Literacy Behind Bars

Vocational training programs often include academic
instruction in the reading, writing, and mathematics
skills required for a particular profession, as well as
instruction in general work skills such as how to
communicate or work with other people. Among
those inmates who participated in vocational training
programs, 46 percent received some instruction in
reading as part of the program, 44 percent received
instruction in writing, 63 percent received instruction in mathematics, 31 percent received instruction
in computer skills, and 74 percent received instruction in how to communicate or work better with
other people (figure 4-8).

Prison inmates who had participated in vocational
training in the past had higher average prose and
document literacy than inmates who had not participated in any vocational training (figure 4-9).A higher percentage of prison inmates with Below Basic
prose literacy than with Intermediate prose literacy
had not participated in any vocational training programs (figure 4-10).

Figure 4-9. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison
population, by participation in vocational training: 2003
Average score
500
350

Figure 4-8. Percentage of the adult prison population participating in vocational training
who received selected types of instruction as part of the vocational training,
by type of instruction: 2003

300
257

265

250

255

253

255

246

252

254

247

Percent
100
200

80

74
63

60
46

150

44

40

31

0
Prose

20

Document
Literacy scale

Quantitative

0
Reading

Writing

Mathematics Computers Communication

Vocational training emphasis
NOTE: Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not
be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent in 2003) are
excluded from this figure.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for
Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

52

Current participation

Past participation

No participation

NOTE: Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not
be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent in 2003) are
excluded from this figure.
SOURCE: U. S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for
Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Chapter 4: Education and Job Training in Prison

Figure 4-10. Percentage of the adult prison population who participated in vocational training, by prose, document, and quantitative literacy level: 2003
Prose

100
80

80

Percent 60
current or past
participation 40

Percent 60
current or past
participation 40

20
0

10
13

10

10

18

22

10

16

20

21
0

9
14

9

10

19

21

78

73

69

26

20

20
Percent no 40
participation
60

Document

100

77

72

68

69

Percent no 40
participation
60

58

80

80

100

100
Below Basic

Basic
Intermediate
Literacy level

Below Basic

Proficient

Basic
Intermediate
Literacy level

Proficient

Quantitative

100
80
Percent 60
current or past
participation 40
20
0

9
17

10

10

22

19

9
13

68

70

78

20
Percent no
participation

40

75

60
80
100
Below Basic

Current participation

Basic
Intermediate
Literacy level

Past participation

Proficient

No participation

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this figure.
SOURCE: U. S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

53

Literacy Behind Bars

Skill Certification
Information technology (IT) is a growing area of
employment. Certification programs, both within
prisons and for the general population, are becoming more commonly available. IT certification is
available in a variety of areas, including both basic
skills such as word processing and more advanced
skills such as computer networking. Other types of
job-related skill certification that are recognized by
a licensing board or an industry or professional association also provide credentials that are recognized
in the job market. Certification programs are sometimes offered by prisons as part of their vocational
education program.As shown in figure 4-11, some 6
percent of adults in prisons had some type of IT certification in 2003 (earned either in prison or prior
to their current incarceration), compared with 8
percent of adults living in households. The difference in the percentage of adults in prisons and

households who had other types of certification was
not statistically significant.
Within both the prison and households populations,
adults who had received IT or other certification had
higher prose, document, and quantitative literacy
than adults who had not received any certification
(figures 4-12 and 4-13). However, adults in the
prison population who had received IT or other certification had lower average literacy on all three scales
than adults in the household population who had
received the same type of certification.

Figure 4-12. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult
prison and household populations, by
receipt of information technology skill
certification: 2003
Average score
500

Prose

Document

Quantitative

350

Figure 4-11. Percentage of the adult prison and
household populations who have
received skill certification: 2003

300

IT certification

Other certification

80

285*

276 273*
255
250

Percent
100

302*

291*

277 281*

267 269*
247

247

Prison Household
Population

Prison Household

200

60
150

40
25
20
6

8*

Prison

Household

27

0

Prison Household

0
Prison

Household

Population
*Significantly different from prison population.
NOTE: Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons or households. Adults
who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent
of the prison sample and 3 percent of the household sample in 2003) are excluded from this figure.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for
Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

54

No IT certification

Received IT certification

*Significantly different from prison population.
NOTE: Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons or households. Adults
who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent
of the prison sample and 3 percent of the household sample in 2003) are excluded from this figure.
SOURCE: U. S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for
Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Chapter 4: Education and Job Training in Prison

In both the prison and households populations, the
differences in the percentage of adults in each quantitative literacy level who had received IT certification were not significant (figure 4-14). Within each
quantitative literacy level, the differences in the percentage of the prison and household populations
with IT certification were not statistically significant.
Within both the prison and household populations,
adults with Below Basic quantitative literacy were less
likely to have received certification other than IT
than adults with Basic or Intermediate quantitative literacy (figure 4-15).

Figure 4-13. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult
prison and household populations, by
receipt of other job-related skill certification: 2003
Average score
500

Prose

Document

297*

291*

283*

270 269*
250

252

246

255

Percent
100
80
60
40
20
0

2

5

Below Basic

8

7

10

9

Basic
Intermediate
Literacy level
Prison

9

12

Proficient

Household

NOTE:Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons or households. Adults
who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent
of the prison sample and 3 percent of the household sample in 2003) are excluded from this figure.
SOURCE: U. S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for
Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Quantitative

350

300

Figure 4-14. Percentage of the adult prison and
household populations in each quantitative literacy level, by receipt of information technology skill certification:
2003

277*

266*

Figure 4-15. Percentage of the adult prison and
household populations in each quantitative literacy level, by receipt of other
job-related skill certification: 2003

259
246

Percent
100
80

200

60
40

150
0

Prison Household

Prison Household
Population

Prison Household

20

28
19

Received other job certification

32

26

32

0
Basic
Intermediate
Literacy level
Prison

*Significantly different from prison population.
NOTE: Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons or households. Adults
who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent
of the prison sample and 3 percent of the household sample in 2003) are excluded from this figure.
SOURCE: U. S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for
Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

30

16

Below Basic
No other job certification

26

Proficient

Household

NOTE: Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons or households. Adults
who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent
of the prison sample and 3 percent of the household sample in 2003) are excluded from this figure.
SOURCE: U. S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for
Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

55

Literacy Behind Bars

Summary
Forty-three percent of prison inmates entered prison
with a high school diploma or a GED/high school
equivalency certificate. An additional 4 percent of
prison inmates had earned their GED/high school
equivalency certificate since entering prison, and 5
percent were enrolled in academic classes that might
eventually lead to a GED/high school equivalency
certificate. Prison inmates with a high school diploma or a GED/high school equivalency certificate
had higher average prose, document, and quantitative
literacy than prison inmates with lower levels of educational attainment.
Many prisons offer vocational training as well as academic classes, and 29 percent of prison inmates had
participated in some sort of vocational training.
However, more inmates reported being on waiting
lists for these programs than were enrolled. Prison

56

inmates who had participated in vocational training
in the past had higher average prose, document, and
quantitative literacy than prison inmates who had
not participated in any sort of vocational training
program.
Certification programs are sometimes offered as
part of the vocational training provided in prisons.
Prison inmates who had received either information technology certification or some other type of
certification recognized by a licensing board or an
industry or professional association had higher average prose, document, and quantitative literacy than
prison inmates who did not have the same type of
certification. However, prison inmates who had
received either type of certification had lower average levels of prose, document, and quantitative literacy than adults in the household population with
similar certifications.

5

CHAPTER FIVE
Prison Work Assignments
Library Use

Work and Literacy Experiences
in Prison

Computer Use
Reading Frequency
Summary

C

hapter 4 discussed the relationship between
literacy and education and job training
experiences in prison.This chapter discusses the relationship between literacy and other experiences in prison, including work assignments,
library access and use, computer use, and reading.
The relationship between literacy and these other
prison experiences is complex. Although inmates
who enter prison with higher literacy may be more
likely to use the library and computers, read, and
even get certain work assignments, participating in
any of these activities may help inmates improve
their literacy.

Prison Work Assignments
In 2003, some 68 percent of prison inmates had a
work assignment. Prison inmates who had a work
assignment had higher average prose and quantitative literacy than those who had no work assignment (figure 5-1). Seventy-two percent of incarcerated adults with Intermediate prose literacy had a
work assignment, compared with 66 percent of
prison inmates with Below Basic prose literacy (figure 5-2).
A variety of jobs are available in prisons. Some jobs
involve little or no reading and writing, such as
working in the prison laundry or on the
groundskeeping crew. Other jobs involve large
amounts of reading and writing, such as working in
a prison office. As part of their work assignments,
57

Literacy Behind Bars

inmates may encounter both prose texts and documents. Prison inmates who read every day as part of
their work assignment had higher average document
literacy than those prison inmates who never read as

Figure 5-1. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison
population, by current prison work
assignment: 2003

part of their work assignment, but the differences in
prose literacy were not statistically significant (figure
5-3). Prison inmates who wrote every day as part of
their work assignment had higher average prose,

Figure 5-2. Percentage of the adult prison population who had a current prison work
assignment, by prose, document, and
quantitative literacy level: 2003
Percent
100

Average score
500
350

80

80
66

72
63

63

68

69

67

63

70

71

69

60
300

40
259

251

250

250

247

252

20
243
0

Prose

Document
Literacy scale

200
Below Basic

Basic

Intermediate

Quantitative

Proficient

150
0

Prose

Document

Quantitative

Literacy scale
Currently has work assignment

No work assignment

NOTE: Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not
be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent in 2003) are
excluded from this figure.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for
Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

58

NOTE: Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not
be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent in 2003) are
excluded from this figure.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for
Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Chapter 5: Work and Literacy Experiences in Prison

document, and quantitative literacy than those who
never wrote or those who wrote less than every day
as part of their work assignment (figure 5-4).
Moreover, prison inmates who wrote less than every

day as part of their work assignment had lower average prose, document, and quantitative literacy than
those inmates who never wrote as part of their work
assignment.

Figure 5-3. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison
population, by frequency of reading as
part of current prison work assignment:
2003

Figure 5-4. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison
population, by frequency of writing as
part of current prison work assignment:
2003

Average score
500

Average score
500

350

350

300

300
263

271
257

257

250

256

246

246

255

251

249

259
250

200

200

150

150

0

Prose

Every day

Document
Literacy scale
Less than every day

Quantitative

Never

NOTE: Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not
be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent in 2003) are
excluded from this figure.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for
Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

0

245

Prose

Every day

264

261
239

251

248

Document
Literacy scale
Less than every day

238

Quantitative

Never

NOTE: Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not
be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent in 2003) are
excluded from this figure.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for
Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

59

Literacy Behind Bars

Although reading and writing on a regular basis as
part of a work assignment may lead to improvement
in an inmate’s literacy, it is also possible that inmates
who already have more-advanced reading and writing skills are more likely to be given work assignments that require more-frequent reading and writing. Figure 5-5 shows the percentage of incarcerated
adults at each prose literacy level who had a work
assignment that either did or did not require reading.
None of the differences across the literacy levels was
statistically significant.

Figure 5-5. Percentage of the adult prison population who read as part of current prison
work assignment, by prose literacy
level: 2003
100
80
Percent 60
read
40

32

36

46

13

17

13

10

56

51

51

44

31
20
0
20

However, there were significant differences in the
percentages of inmates in each literacy level who had
jobs that required writing regularly (figure 5-6).
Forty percent of inmates with Proficient prose literacy
and 29 percent of inmates with Intermediate prose literacy wrote every day, compared with 17 percent of
inmates with Below Basic prose literacy. Thirty-one
percent of inmates with Intermediate document literacy wrote every day, compared with 13 percent of
inmates with Below Basic document literacy.

60

Percent did 40
not read
60
80
100
Below Basic

Every day

Basic
Intermediate
Literacy level

Less than every day

Proficient

Never

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Adults are defined as people 16 years of
age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or
cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this figure.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for
Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Chapter 5: Work and Literacy Experiences in Prison

Figure 5-6. Percentage of the adult prison population who wrote as part of current prison work assignment, by
prose and document literacy level: 2003
Prose

100
80
Percent 60
wrote
40

Document

100
80
Percent
wrote

17

21

29

20
25

25

0
20
58

54

40
13

40

15

60

23

4

25

0

57

Percent did 40
not write
60

31

20

20
57

20

Percent did
not write

64

40

54

28
15

54

4

69

60
80

80

100

100
Below Basic

Basic
Intermediate
Literacy level

Below Basic

Proficient

Every day

Less than every day

Basic
Intermediate
Literacy level

Proficient

Never

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this figure.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

61

Literacy Behind Bars

Library Use
Many prisons have a library that is available to
inmates, although the hours that the library is open,
the procedures that inmates must go through to
request a visit to the library or delivery of books from
the library, and the extent and variety of reading
material available vary.12 Prisoner inmates do not
always have easy access to a library, but 75 percent of
inmates reported that they used the prison library at
least once or twice a year. Although 59 percent of
prisoners were usually able to access the library within 2 days of wanting to do so, 22 percent had to wait
12 The

Directory of State Prison Librarians 2002 lists 826 state prisons
that have a librarian (Maryland Correctional Education Libraries
2002). In 2000, the most recent year for which data are available,
there were 1,320 state correctional facilities in the United States
(Stephan and Karlberg 2003).

2 to 6 days, 10 percent had to wait 7 to 10 days, and
an additional 10 percent had to wait 10 days or more
(figure 5-7).
Library use can be related to literacy in two ways:
adults who have higher literacy levels may be more
likely to want to access the library and find things to
read, and adults who use the library and read more
frequently may improve their literacy levels.
As shown in figure 5-8, prison inmates who used the
library weekly or monthly had higher average prose

Figure 5-8. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison
population, by frequency of library use:
2003
Average score
500
350

Figure 5-7. Percentage of the adult prison population who attempted to use the prison
library, by number of days it took to
obtain access: 2003

300
255

80

242 237
234

248

255 258 252

244
231

59
150
22

20
Less than
2 days

2 to 6 days

0
10

10

7 to 10 days

More than
10 days

Number of days
NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Adults are defined as people 16 years of
age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or
cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this figure.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for
Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

62

243

200

40

0

261

256 256

250

Percent
100

60

266

Daily

Prose

Weekly

Document
Literacy scale

Monthly

Quantitative

Once or twice a year

Never

NOTE: Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not
be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent in 2003) are
excluded from this figure.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for
Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Chapter 5: Work and Literacy Experiences in Prison

literacy than prison inmates who never used the
library. Prison inmates who used the library daily had
higher average document literacy than prison
inmates who used the library less frequently (weekly,
monthly, once or twice a year, or never). Prison
inmates who used the library daily, weekly, or
monthly had higher average quantitative literacy than
prison inmates who never used the library, and
prison inmates who used the library weekly had
higher average quantitative literacy than prison
inmates who used the library once or twice a year.
Thiry-eight percent of prison inmates with Below
Basic prose literacy never used the library, compared
with 26 percent of prison inmates with Basic prose literacy, 19 percent with Intermediate prose literacy, and
19 percent with Proficient prose literacy (figure 5-9).

Figure 5-9. Percentage of the adult prison population who used the library, by prose literacy level: 2003
100
80

11

10

42

48

12

Percent 60
used library
40

11

20

19

19

19

0

9

10

10

38

26

19

20

33

23

18
6
19

Percent 40
did not
use library 60
80
100
Below Basic

Daily

Weekly

Basic
Intermediate
Literacy level

Monthly

Proficient

Once or twice a year

Never

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Adults are defined as people 16 years of
age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or
cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this figure.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for
Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

63

Literacy Behind Bars

Computer Use

computer, and inmates who use a computer regularly, particularly for tasks that involve reading and writing, may improve their literacy.

Although access to the Internet is typically prohibited within prisons, incarcerated adults may have
opportunities to use other computer programs and
features through academic classes, job training, work
assignments, or the prison library. As with library
use, the relationship between literacy and computer
use is probably a two-way process: inmates with
higher levels of literacy may be more likely to use a

Incarcerated adults who used a computer for word
processing or for using a CD-ROM had higher average document and quantitative literacy than those
who never used a computer for these tasks (figure 510). Inmates who used a spreadsheet had higher average prose literacy than inmates who did not.

Figure 5-10. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison population, by computer use for various tasks: 2003
Average score
500
Prose

350

Document

Quantitative

300
265

275

271
255

255

256

CD-ROM

Spreadsheet

250

269

260

259
247

247

257

248

258

248

263
247

248

200

150
0

Word processing

Word processing

CD-ROM

Spreadsheet

Word processing

CD-ROM

Spreadsheet

Task
Used

Never used

NOTE: Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent in 2003) are excluded from
this figure.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

64

Chapter 5: Work and Literacy Experiences in Prison

There were no statistically significant differences in
the percentage of inmates with Below Basic, Basic,
Intermediate, or Proficient prose literacy who wrote
using a word processing program (figure 5-11).There
were also no statistically significant differences in the
percentage of inmates with Below Basic, Basic,
Intermediate, or Proficient document literacy who
looked up information on a computer CD-ROM
(figure 5-12). A higher percentage of inmates with
Proficient than with Below Basic or Basic quantitative
literacy used a spreadsheet program (figure 5-13).

Figure 5-12. Percentage of the adult prison population who looked up information on a
computer CD-ROM, by document literacy level: 2003
Percent
100
80
60
40
20
0

Below Basic

Figure 5-11. Percentage of the adult prison population who wrote using a word processing program, by prose literacy level:
2003

11

8

3

Basic
Intermediate
Literacy level

6
Proficient

NOTE: Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not
be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent in 2003) are
excluded from this figure.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for
Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Percent
100

Figure 5-13. Percentage of the adult prison population who used a computer spreadsheet program, by quantitative literacy
level: 2003

80
60
40
20

8

12

15

12

0
Below Basic

Basic
Intermediate
Literacy level

Proficient

Percent
100
80
60

NOTE: Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not
be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent in 2003) are
excluded from this figure.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for
Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

40
20
4

6

7

13

0
Below Basic

Basic
Intermediate
Literacy level

Proficient

NOTE: Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not
be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent in 2003) are
excluded from this figure.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for
Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

65

Literacy Behind Bars

Reading Frequency
Incarcerated adults often have time they need to fill
up, and reading is one activity that fills time. Fortythree percent of prison inmates reported reading
newspapers and magazines every day, 50 percent read
books every day, and 33 percent read letters and
notes every day (figure 5-14). Only 10 percent of
prison inmates never read newspapers and magazines, and 8 percent never read books or letters and

notes. A higher percentage of prison inmates than
adults living in households read books every day (50
percent versus 32 percent), but adults living in households were more likely than incarcerated adults to
read newspapers and magazines or letters and notes
every day. Among adults in prisons and households,
97 percent and 96 percent, respectively, reported
reading one of these three types of reading material
at least occasionally.

Figure 5-14. Percentage of the adult prison and household populations who read each of the following printed materials in English: newspapers or magazines, books, letters and notes, by frequency of reading: 2003
Percent
100

Newspapers or magazines

Books

Letters and notes

80
60
40

43

0

33

32*

27 25
20

51*

50

48*

25*

22 20
10 12

10 9

8 10* 12

10 6*

Every Few times Once
Less than Never
day
a week a week once a week

8

13*

Every Few times Once
Less than Never
day
a week a week once a week

33
20*

13 10* 14 13

8 7

Every Few times Once
Less than Never
day
a week a week once a week

Frequency of reading
Prison

Household

*Significantly different from prison population.
NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons or households. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent of the prison sample and 3 percent of the household sample in 2003) are excluded from this figure.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

66

Chapter 5: Work and Literacy Experiences in Prison

Prison inmates who read newspapers and magazines,
books, or letters and notes had higher average prose
and document literacy than prison inmates who
never read at all, regardless of the frequency with
which they read (figure 5-15). Looked at another
way, a higher percentage of inmates with Below Basic

prose literacy never read newspapers and magazines,
books, or letters and notes than inmates with higher
levels of prose literacy (figure 5-16). Compared with
inmates who had Below Basic prose literacy, a higher
percentage of inmates with Basic or Intermediate prose
literacy read these materials every day.

Figure 5-15. Average prose and document literacy scores of the adult prison population, by frequency of reading each of the following printed materials in English: newspapers or magazines, books, letters and
notes: 2003
Average score
500

Prose

Document

350

300
263 263
250

266
249 254

263 261 260

257 252
249

255

252 250 250
245

249

251 253 253 246

248 243 246

216

208

201

192

200

191

189

150
0
Newspapers or magazines

Books

Every day

Letters and notes

Few times a week

Newspapers or magazines
Printed material
Once a week

Less than once a week

Books

Letters and notes

Never

NOTE: Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent in 2003) are excluded from
this figure.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

67

Literacy Behind Bars

Figure 5-16. Percentage of the adult prison population who read each of the following printed materials in
English: newspapers or magazines, books, letters and notes, by prose literacy level: 2003
Books

Newspapers or magazines
100

100

80

80
44
Percent 60
read
40

0
20

Percent 60
read
40

29
17

20

47

48

13
10
32

29
9
11
7

23

31
8
9

15
10

5

5

20
0

Percent did 40
not read
60

80

80

59

22

21

22

10
14

9
13

7
10
2

5

30

20

Percent did 40
not read
60

52

50

25
28
14
7
2

100

100
Below Basic

Basic
Intermediate
Literacy level

Below Basic

Proficient

Basic
Intermediate
Literacy level

Proficient

Letters and notes
100
80

34

38

Percent 60
read
40

20
27

32

34

20

10

13

17

15

13
12

26

6

3

0
20

29

45
15
10
1

Percent did 40
not read
60
80
100
Below Basic

Every day

Few times
a week

Basic
Intermediate
Literacy level
Once a week

Proficient

Less than
once a week

Never

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this figure.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

68

Chapter 5: Work and Literacy Experiences in Prison

Summary
In general, inmates who participated in activities that
required some reading or writing had average literacy either the same as or higher than the average literacy of inmates who did not participate in these
activities.
Prison inmates who had work assignments had
higher average prose and quantitative literacy than
inmates who did not have work assignments. Prison
inmates who used the prison library weekly or
monthly had higher average prose literacy than
prison inmates who never used the library. Prison
inmates who used a computer for word processing
or for using a CD-ROM had higher average document and quantitative literacy than inmates who
never used a computer for these things. Finally,
prison inmates who read newspapers and magazines,
books, or letters and notes had higher average prose
and document literacy than prison inmates who
never read, regardless of the frequency with which
they read.

A higher percentage of inmates with Proficient and
Intermediate prose literacy than with Below Basic prose
literacy had prison work assignments that required
writing every day. A higher percentage of inmates
with Basic, Intermediate, and Proficient prose literacy
than with Below Basic prose literacy used the library.
A higher percentage of prison inmates with Proficient
than with Below Basic or Basic quantitative literacy
used a spreadsheet program. Moreover, a higher percentage of inmates with Basic or Intermediate than
with Below Basic prose literacy read newspapers and
magazines, books, and letters and notes every day.
Although engaging in any of the activities discussed
above may improve an inmate’s literacy, it is also possible that inmates who already have higher levels of
literacy are more likely to participate in these activities. Readers are cautioned not to draw causal inferences based solely on the results presented here. As
discussed in chapter 1, many of the variables discussed
here are related to one another, and complex interactions and relationships have not been explored here.

69

6

CHAPTER SIX
Type of Offense
Expected Length of
Incarceration

Criminal History and Current Offense

A

s discussed in chapter 2, the adult prison
population was over 50 percent larger in
2003 than 10 years previously. The 2003
prison population was also somewhat older and better educated than in 1992 (table 2-1).As discussed in
this chapter, there were also some changes in the
reasons adults were incarcerated, their length of
incarceration, and their previous criminal history.
Information presented in this chapter related to type
of offense, length of incarceration, expected date of
release, and criminal record are based on prison
inmates’ self-reports, not prison records.

Expected Date of Release
Previous Criminal History
Summary

In both 1992 and 2003, the commission of a violent
crime was the most common reason adults were
incarcerated (table 6-1).13 In 1992, some 44 percent
of prison inmates were incarcerated because they
had committed a violent crime; in 2003, some 47
percent of prison inmates had committed a violent
crime.There was a slight decline between 1992 and
2003 in the percentage of inmates who were
imprisoned because of property crimes. The percentage of inmates who had previously been sentenced to both probation and incarceration rose
from 48 percent in 1992 to 64 percent in 2003.
On average, prison sentences were longer in 2003
than in 1992 (table 6-1).The percentage of inmates
who expected to be incarcerated for a total of over
10 years (121 months or more) increased from
16 percent in 1992 to 28 percent in 2003, and the
13

See appendix B for a discussion of how different crimes were classified.

71

Literacy Behind Bars

Table 6-1. Percentage of the adult prison population in selected groups: 1992 and 2003
Characteristic
Type of offense
Violent
Property
Drug
Public order
Expected length of incarceration
0–60 months
61–120 months
121+ months
Expected date of release
2 years or less
More than 2 years
Previous criminal history
None
Probation only
Incarceration only
Probation and incarceration

1992

2003

44
18
25
13

47
15*
23
15

64
20
16

52*
21
28*

66
34

62
38

21
14
16
48

16*
11
10*
64*

*Significantly different from 1992.
NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Adults are defined as people 16 years of
age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or
cognitive or mental disabilities (3 percent in 1992 and 1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this
table. Results are based on inmates self report, not prison records.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for
Education Statistics, 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey and 2003 National Assessment of Adult
Literacy.

72

percentage who expected to be incarcerated for 5
years or less declined from 64 percent to 52 percent.
Despite these changes in expected total length of
incarceration, there were no statistically significant
changes between 1992 and 2003 in the percentage of
prison inmates who expected to be released within
the next 2 years—a population of particular interest
because they will need to find employment after
their release from prison. In 2003, some 62 percent
of prison inmates expected to be released within 2
years.

Type of Offense
Prison inmates are often sentenced for more than
one crime. For example, a drug dealer may shoot
another drug dealer and receive a sentence for both
drug dealing and murder. In this discussion of type of
offense, inmates are categorized by the offense for
which they received the longest sentence. In the
example just given, in which a drug dealer shoots
another drug dealer, if the crime for which the
inmate received the longest sentence was the murder,
that inmate’s offense would be categorized as violent.
If the drug dealing resulted in a longer sentence, the
inmate’s offense would be categorized as a drug
crime. More information on how offenses were classified is included in appendix B.

Chapter 6: Criminal History and Current Offense

In 2003, inmates who were incarcerated because of a
property crime had higher average document
literacy than inmates who were incarcerated for
other types of offenses (figure 6-1). There were no
statistically significant differences in prose or quantitative scores based on the type of offense that led to
incarceration.
As discussed in chapter 2, among the total adult
prison population, average prose and quantitative literacy increased between 1992 and 2003, but there
were no statistically significant changes in document
literacy (figure 2-1). Average prose scores and quantitative literacy also increased among inmates imprisoned for a violent crime (figure 6-1). Average prose

literacy increased among inmates who had committed a drug offense, and average quantitative literacy
increased among inmates imprisoned for a public
order offense. Reflecting the lack of significant
change in document literacy between 1992 and 2003
for the prison population as a whole, there were no
statistically significant changes in average document
literacy for any of the four types of offenses examined in figure 6-1.
Among inmates who had committed a violent crime,
the percentage with Below Basic literacy declined
from 23 percent to 17 percent on the prose scale,
24 percent to 14 percent on the document scale, and
52 percent to 39 percent on the quantitative scale

Figure 6-1. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison population, by type of
offense: 1992 and 2003
Average score
500
Prose

350

Document

Quantitative

300

250

247

256*

257

263

255*
243

258
245

241 247

251

258
240

247

240

249*

248

243

253

231

251*

247
233

233

200

150
0

Violent

Property

Drug

Public order

Violent

Property
Drug
Type of offense
1992

Public order

Violent

Property

Drug

Public order

2003

*Significantly different from 1992.
NOTE: Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (3 percent in 1992 and 1 percent in
2003) are excluded from this figure.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey and 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

73

Literacy Behind Bars

(figure 6-2). The percentage of inmates who had
committed violent crimes and had Intermediate prose
literacy rose from 34 percent to 41 percent, and the
percentage of inmates who had committed violent
crimes and had Basic quantitative literacy rose from 31

percent to 40 percent.Among inmates who had committed property, drug, or public order crimes, there
were no statistically significant changes in the percentage in each prose, document, and quantitative literacy level.

Figure 6-2. Percentage of the adult prison population in each prose, document, and quantitative literacy level,
by type of offense: 1992 and 2003
Prose

Type of offense
and year
Violent

Property

Drug

Public order

1992

23

40

34

2003

17*

40

41*

3

1992

16

40

41

3

2003
1992

11

19

1992

23
16

2003
80

41

26

2003

60 40 20
Percent Below Basic

0

Document

Type of offense
and year
3

Violent

46

39

33

38

39

41

34

39

42

Property
3

3

Drug

2

Public order
3

Property

Drug

1992

17

31

2003

9

31

1992

24

33

16

36

3
47

1

49

3

58
39

2
4

47

2

1992

22

35

43

1

2003

18

33

46

3

80

52

31

2003

39*

40*

1992

44

37

2003

35

1992

31

41

60 40 20
Percent Below Basic

0

20 40 60 80
Percent Basic and above

100

31

39
60 40 20
Percent Below Basic

Below Basic

Basic

3
19

37
0

2

17

2
21

17

38

51

2003

15

43

49

1992

80

1992

40

38

Quantitative

2003

Public order

33

14*

100

Type of offense
and year
Violent

24

2003

2003

5

20 40 60 80
Percent Basic and above

1992

2

3
19

15

2
3

21

3

20 40 60 80
Percent Basic and above

Intermediate

100

Proficient

*Significantly different from 1992.
NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (3 percent in 1992 and 1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this figure.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey and 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

74

Chapter 6: Criminal History and Current Offense

Expected Length of Incarceration

60 months). Average document literacy increased for
inmates who expected to be incarcerated for over 5
years but not more than 10 years (61 to 120 months).

Expected length of incarceration was calculated from
the time inmates entered prison to the time they
expected to be released.The number represents their
total expected length of incarceration, not the number of months they had remaining on their sentence.
In 2003, there were no statistically significant differences in average prose, document, or quantitative literacy among inmates based on their expected length
of incarceration (figure 6-3).

Among prison inmates who expected to be imprisoned for 5 years or less (0 to 60 months), between
1992 and 2003 the percentage with Below Basic prose
literacy declined from 21 percent to 15 percent and
the percentage with Below Basic quantitative literacy
declined from 49 percent to 40 percent (figure 6-4).
The percentage with Intermediate quantitative literacy increased from 16 percent to 21 percent.

Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy
increased between 1992 and 2003 for inmates who
expected to be incarcerated for over 10 years (121 or
more months), starting from when they were first
incarcerated (figure 6-3).Average prose and quantitative literacy also increased for inmates who expected
to be incarcerated for a total of 5 years or less (0 to

Among prison inmates who expected to be imprisoned for over 5 years but not more than 10 years (61
to 120 months), between 1992 and 2003 the percentage with Below Basic document literacy decreased
from 27 percent to 14 percent and the percentage
with Intermediate document literacy increased from

Figure 6-3. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison population, by expected length of incarceration: 1992 and 2003
Average score
500
Prose

350

Document

Quantitative

300

250

250

258*

252 254

258*
242

253*

248 248

239

249*

248*
233

235

252

247*

240
223

200

150
0

0–60 months 61–120 months 121+ months

0–60 months 61–120 months 121+ months
Expected length of incarceration
1992

0–60 months 61–120 months 121+ months

2003

*Significantly different from 1992.
NOTE: Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (3 percent in 1992 and 1 percent in
2003) are excluded from this figure.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey and 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

75

Literacy Behind Bars

37 percent to 50 percent. The percentage with Basic
quantitative literacy increased from 31 percent to 42
percent.

centage with Basic quantitative literacy increased
from 31 percent to 42 percent, and the percentage
with Intermediate quantitative literacy increased from
10 percent to 17 percent.The percentage with Below
Basic document literacy decreased from 29 percent to
13 percent and the percentage with Intermediate prose
literacy increased from 30 percent to 43 percent.

Among prison inmates who expected to be imprisoned for over 10 years (121 months or more), the
percentage with Below Basic quantitative literacy
decreased from 58 percent to 39 percent, the per-

Figure 6-4. Percentage of the adult prison population in each prose, document, and quantitative literacy level,
by expected length of incarceration: 1992 and 2003
Length of sentence
and year
0–60 months

61–120 months

121+ months

Length of sentence
and year

Prose

1992
2003

21

39

15*

40

1992
2003

22

37

1992
2003

24

80

17

37

45

30

5

61–120 months
3

1

43*

121+ months

3

20 40 60 80
Percent Basic and above

61–120 months

121+ months

1992
2003

46

Below Basic

35

1992
2003

29

32

14*

34
37

13*
60 40 20
Percent Below Basic

0

38

47

3

47
37

2
4

50*
33

3
2

48

20 40 60 80
Percent Basic and above

1
100

Quantitative
49

80

32

16
27

80

1992
2003

1992
2003

18

1992
2003

100

Length of sentence
and year
0–60 months

1992
2003

0–60 months
3

39

39
0

3

42

41

16
60 40 20
Percent Below Basic

37

Document

40*

16 3

37

21*

31

37

31
39*

60 40 20
Percent Below Basic

19

42*
0

3
3

42*

58

Basic

33

19

2

10 1
17* 2

20 40 60 80
Percent Basic and above

Intermediate

100

Proficient

*Significantly different from 1992.
NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (3 percent in 1992 and 1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this figure.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey and 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

76

Chapter 6: Criminal History and Current Offense

Expected Date of Release
The literacy of inmates who are near their expected
date of release may be of particular concern because
they will soon need to do such things as rejoin their
families and find a job. As shown in table 6-1, 74
percent of inmates had been incarcerated previously
(64 percent had been sentenced to both incarceration and probation and an additional 10 percent had
been sentenced to incarceration alone). Without
adequate literacy skills, adjusting to life outside of
prison could be even more difficult for released
inmates.
As was discussed in chapter 3, prison inmates had
lower average prose, document, and quantitative literacy than adults living in households (figure 3-1).
This would be of somewhat less concern if prison
inmates who expected to be released within 2 years
had higher literacy than inmates with more time left
to serve on their sentences, but that was not the case.
In 2003, there was no difference in average prose,
document, and quantitative literacy between prison
inmates with 2 years or less remaining on their sentence and inmates who did not expect to be released
within 2 years (figure 6-5).

Figure 6-5. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison
population, by expected date of release:
1992 and 2003
Average score
500

Prose

Document

Quantitative

350

300

250

251 257 247 257*

246 249 240 248

249*
235

249*
233

200

150
0

2 years More than
or less 2 years

2 years More than
or less 2 years
Expected date of release
1992

2 years More than
or less 2 years

2003

*Significantly different from 1992.
NOTE: Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not
be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (3 percent in 1992 and 1
percent in 2003) are excluded from this figure.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for
Education Statistics, 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey and 2003 National Assessment of Adult
Literacy.

Among inmates with 2 years or less remaining on
their sentences, average quantitative literacy increased
between 1992 and 2003, but the changes in average
prose and document literacy were not statistically
significant (figure 6-5). Among inmates who did not
expect to be released within 2 years, both average
prose and average quantitative scores increased.

77

Literacy Behind Bars

Among prison inmates who expected to be released
in 2 years or less, the percentage with the lowest literacy, Below Basic, did decrease from 22 percent to 15
percent on the prose scale and from 49 percent to 40
percent on the quantitative scale (figure 6-6).
However, although the percentages of inmates who
had Below Basic prose literacy and expected to be
released within 2 years decreased, because of the
increase in the size of the prison population, the
number of inmates in this category was approximately 130,000 in both years. The percentage with Basic
and Intermediate quantitative literacy increased.
Among inmates who expected to serve additional
time of more than 2 years, the percentage with Below
Basic document and quantitative literacy decreased,
the percentage with Intermediate prose literacy
increased, and the percentage with Basic quantitative
literacy increased.

Figure 6-6.

Percentage of the adult prison population in each prose, document, and
quantitative literacy level, by expected
date of release: 1992 and 2003
Prose

Expected date of
release and year
2 years 1992
or less 2003

22

38

15*

41

More than 1992
2 years 2003

22

42

34

17

37

42*

80

60 40 20
Percent Below Basic

0

3
2
4

20 40 60 80
Percent Basic and above

2 years 1992
or less 2003

20

32

15

35

More than 1992
2 years 2003

25

60 40 20
Percent Below Basic

44

100

2

39

36
0

3

48

33

14*

3
49

1

20 40 60 80
Percent Basic and above

100

Quantitative

Expected date of
release and year
2 years 1992
or less 2003

49

32

40*

38*

More than 1992
2 years 2003

51

80

4

41

Document

Expected date of
release and year

80

37

31

38*
60 40 20
Percent Below Basic

Below Basic

Basic

41*
0

16

3

20*
15

2

2
19

2

20 40 60 80
Percent Basic and above

Intermediate

100

Proficient

*Significantly different from 1992.
NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Adults are defined as people 16 years of
age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or
cognitive or mental disabilities (3 percent in 1992 and 1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this
figure.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for
Education Statistics, 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey and 2003 National Assessment of Adult
Literacy.

78

Chapter 6: Criminal History and Current Offense

Previous Criminal History

6-7).There were no other statistically significant differences based on criminal history.

In 2003, 16 percent of prison inmates had never previously been incarcerated or on probation, 11 percent had been on probation only, 10 percent had
been incarcerated only, and 64 percent had been
both incarcerated and on probation (table 6-1). In
2003, inmates who had previously been incarcerated
only had lower average document literacy than
inmates who had previously been on probation only
or been both on probation and incarcerated (figure

Between 1992 and 2003, average prose and quantitative literacy increased among inmates who had
previously been sentenced to both probation and
incarceration, and average document literacy
increased among inmates who had previously been
sentenced to probation only (figure 6-7). The only
changes in the distribution of inmates across the literacy levels were that a lower percentage of inmates

Figure 6-7. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy scores of the adult prison population, by previous criminal history: 1992 and 2003
Average score
500
Prose

350

Document

Quantitative

300

250

252 248

249

259
244

252

248

258*

249 248

256*
242

238 237

243 249

240

257*

250

241
228

249

247*
231

200

150
0

None

Probation Incarceration Probation and
incarceration
only
only

None

Probation Incarceration Probation and
incarceration
only
only

None

Probation Incarceration Probation and
incarceration
only
only

Previous criminal history
1992

2003

*Significantly different from 1992.
NOTE: Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (3 percent in 1992 and 1 percent in
2003) are excluded from this figure.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey and 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

79

Literacy Behind Bars

who had previously been sentenced to both incarceration and probation had Below Basic prose literacy in 2003 than in 1992 (13 percent versus 21 percent) and a higher percentage had Intermediate prose
literacy in 2003 than in 1992 (43 percent versus 35
percent) (figure 6-8).

Figure 6-8. Percentage of the adult prison population in each prose literacy level, by previous criminal history: 1992 and 2003

22

1992
2003

Probation only

29

38

14

2003

Probation and 1992
incarceration 2003

33

37

5
8

34

33

3
4

38

21

42

35

13*

42

43*

0

4

43

21

60 40 20
Percent Below Basic
Basic

37

40

27

Incarceration 1992
only 2003

Below Basic

31

23

1992

80

37

37

5
2

20 40 60 80
Percent Basic and above

Intermediate

When compared with the prison population in
1992, the prison population in 2003 included a higher percentage of inmates who expected to be incarcerated for more than 10 years (16 percent versus 28
percent). Among these inmates who expected to be
incarcerated for more than 10 years, average prose,
document, and quantitative literacy was higher in
2003 than in 1992.
The 2003 prison population also included a higher
percentage of inmates who had previously been sentenced to both incarceration and probation (48 percent versus 64 percent). Between 1992 and 2003,
average prose and quantitative literacy increased
among inmates who had previously been sentenced
to both probation and incarceration and average document literacy increased among inmates who had
been sentenced to probation only.

Previous criminal
history and year
None

Summary 14

2
100

Proficient

*Significantly different from 1992.
NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Adults are defined as people 16 years of
age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or
cognitive or mental disabilities (3 percent in 1992 and 1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this
figure.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for
Education Statistics, 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey and 2003 National Assessment of Adult
Literacy.

The most common reason for incarceration in both
1992 and 2003 was the commission of a violent
crime. Between 1992 and 2003, average prose and
quantitative literacy increased among inmates who
were imprisoned because of a violent crime. On all
three scales, the percentage of inmates who had been
convicted of a violent crime and had Below Basic literacy declined.
Inmates who expect to be released within the next 2
years are of particular interest because they will need
to find jobs and rejoin their families and communities. There were no statistically significant changes
between 1992 and 2003 in the percentage of inmates
with 2 years or less left to serve on their sentences.
Among inmates with 2 years or less remaining on
their sentences, average quantitative literacy
increased, but the changes in average prose and document literacy were not significant.
14

Information presented in this chapter related to type of offense,
length of incarceration, expected date of release, and criminal record
are based on prison inmates’ self-reports, not prison records.

80

REFERENCES

References
Binder, D.A. (1983). On the Variances of Asymptotically
Normal Estimates for Complex Surveys. International
Statistical Review, 51(3), 279-92.
Bureau of Justice Statistics. (1997). Correctional Populations in
the United States, 1997. U.S. Department of Justice.
Washington, DC: Author.
Clayton, S.L. (2005). Jail Inmates Bake Their Way to
Successful Reentry. Corrections Today, 67(2): 78-81.
Cohen, T. H., and Reaves, B.A. (2006). Felony Defendants in
Large Urban Counties, 2002. U.S. Department of Justice.
Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Glaze, L., and Palla, S. (2005). Probation and Parole in the
United States, 2004. U.S. Department of Justice.
Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Hambleton, R.K., and Swaminathan, H. (1985). Item
Response Theory: Principles and Applications. Boston:
Kluwer-Nijhoff Publishing.
Harlow, C. (2003). Education and Correctional Populations. U.S.
Department of Justice.Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice
Statistics.
Harrison, P.M., and Beck, A.J. (2005). Prisoners in 2004. U.S.
Department of Justice.Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice
Statistics.
Hauser, R.M., Edley, C.F. Jr., Koenig, J.A., and Elliott, S.W.
(Eds.). (2005). Measuring Literacy: Performance Levels for
Adults, Interim Report. Washington, DC: National
Academies Press.

81

Literacy Behind Bars

Kutner, M., Greenberg,E.,and Baer, J. (2005). A First Look at the Literacy of America’s Adults in the 21st Century
(NCES 2006–470). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education
Statistics.
Kutner, M., Greenberg, E., Jin,Y., Boyle, B., Hsu,Y., and Dunleavy, E. (2007). Literacy in Everyday Life: Results
From the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NCES 2007–480). U.S. Department of Education.
Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Little, R.J.A., and Rubin, D.B. (2002). Statistical Analysis with Missing Data. Hoboken, New Jersey:Wiley.
Maryland Correctional Education Libraries. (2002). Directory of State Prison Librarians 2002. Baltimore: MD:
Author.
Rock, D., and Yamamoto, K. (2001). Construct Validity of the Adult Literacy Scales. In U.S. Department of
Education. National Center for Education Statistics. Technical Report and Data File User’s Manual for the 1992
National Adult Literacy Survey, NCES 2001–457, by I. Kirsch, K.Yamamoto, N. Norris, D. Rock,A. Jungeblut,
P. O’Reilly, M. Berlin, L. Mohadjer, J. Waksberg, H. Goskel, J. Burke, S. Rieger, J. Green, M. Klein, A.
Campbell, L. Jenkins, A. Kolstad, P. Mosenthal, and S. Baldi.
Snell,T. (1995). Correctional Populations in the United States, 1993. U.S. Department of Justice.Washington, DC:
Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Stephan, J., and Karberg, J (2003). Census of State and Federal Correctional Facilities, 2000. U.S. Department of
Justice,Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Vacca, J.S. (2004). Educated Prisoners Are Less Likely to Return to Prison. Journal of Correctional Education,
55(4): 297-305.
Welsh, M.F. (2002).The Effects of the Elimination of Pell Grant Eligibility for State Prison Inmates. Journal of
Correctional Education, 53(4): 154–58
White, S., and Dillow, S. (2005). Key Concepts and Features of the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy
(NCES 2006-471). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: National Center for Education
Statistics.

82

A

APPENDIX A

Sample Assessment Questions
espondents who participated in the 2003
assessment were asked to complete prose,
document, and quantitative literacy tasks
of varying levels of difficulty. The sample questions on the following pages illustrate the types of
tasks used to measure the literacy of America’s
adults. These questions were originally developed
for the 1992 survey and reused in 2003.The same
literacy tasks were used for the household and
prison samples.

R

Consistent with the design of the assessment, each
sample question appears before the text or document needed to answer the question.The percentage of respondents who answered the question
correctly is reported separately for the household
and prison samples.The percentage of respondents
at each literacy level who answered each question
correctly is reported for the combined household
and prison sample only.1
More information about the sample assessment
questions can be found on the Internet at
http://nces.ed.gov/naal.
1

As discussed in appendix C, each respondent was presented with 3 of the
12 blocks of questions.Therefore, the number of respondents for each question was smaller than the total sample size. Because of this, and because of the
small number of prison inmates in some of the literacy levels, the sample size
does not permit reporting percent correct separately for the prison population by literacy level.

83

Literacy Behind Bars

Prose Literacy Question
Refer to the article on the next page to answer the following question.
According to the brochure, why is it difficult for people to know if they have high blood pressure?
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Correct answer
Any statement such as the following:
Symptoms are not usually present
High blood pressure is silent
Percentage of adults who answered the question correctly, 2003
All Prison Inmates

All Adults in Households

Below Basic

Basic

Intermediate

Proficient

69

74

11

70

96

100

NOTE: Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons or households. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (3 percent in 2003) are
excluded from these data.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

84

Appendix A: Sample Assessment Questions

85

Literacy Behind Bars

Prose Literacy Question
Refer to the article on the next page to answer the following question.
What is the purpose of the Se Habla Español expo?
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________

Correct answer
Any statement such as the following:
To enable people to better serve and sell to the Hispanic community
To improve marketing strategies to the Hispanic community
To enable people to establish contacts to serve the Hispanic community
Percentage of adults who answered the question correctly, 2003
All Prison Inmates

All Adults in Households

Below Basic

Basic

Intermediate

Proficient

12

16

#

3

16

60

# Rounds to zero.
NOTE: Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons or households.Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (3 percent in 2003) are
excluded from these data.
SOURCE: U.S.Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

86

Appendix A: Sample Assessment Questions

87

Literacy Behind Bars

Document Literacy Question
Seventy-eight percent of what specific group agree that their school does a good job of encouraging
parental involvement in educational areas?
________________________________________________________________________________

Reduced from original copy

Correct answer
Junior high teachers
Percentage of adults who answered the question correctly, 2003
All Prison Inmates

All Adults in Households

Below Basic

Basic

Intermediate

Proficient

18

36

#

4

47

98

# Rounds to zero.
NOTE: Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons or households.Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (3 percent in 2003) are
excluded from these data.
SOURCE: U.S.Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

88

Appendix A: Sample Assessment Questions

Quantitative Literacy Question
Suppose that you had your oil tank filled with 140.0 gallons of oil, as indicated on the bill, and you
wanted to take advantage of the five cents ($.05) per gallon deduction.
1. Figure out how much the deduction would be if you paid the bill within 10 days. Enter the
amount of the deduction on the bill in the space provided.
________________________________________________________________________________

Reduced from original copy

Correct answer
$7.00
Percentage of adults who answered the question correctly, 2003
All Prison Inmates

All Adults in Households

Below Basic

Basic

Intermediate

Proficient

38

52

1

40

92

100

NOTE: Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons or households.Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (3 percent in 2003) are
excluded from these data.
SOURCE: U.S.Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

89

Literacy Behind Bars

Document and Quantitative Literacy Questions
This is an example of a task that was scored in three separate parts and treated as three separate questions.
The first two questions were included on the document scale and the third question was included on the quantitative scale.

Refer to the form on the next page to answer the following question.
Use the following information to fill in the receipt for certified mail.Then fill in the "TOTAL
Postage and Fees" line.
●
●
●
●

You are sending a package to Doris Carter.
Her address is 19 Main Street, Augusta, GA 30901.
The postage for the package is $1.86.
The fee for certified mail is $0.75.

Correct answer
Question 1 (Document): Enters name and address correctly. No penalty for misspelling.
Percentage of adults who answered the question correctly, 2003
All Prison Inmates

All Adults in Households

Below Basic

Basic

Intermediate

Proficient

66

65

8

54

86

97

NOTE: Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons or households.Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (3 percent in 2003) are
excluded from these data.
SOURCE: U.S.Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Correct answer
Question 2 (Document): Enters $1.86 and $0.75 on the postage and certified fee lines, respectively.
Percentage of adults who answered the question correctly, 2003
All Prison Inmates

All Adults in Households

Below Basic

Basic

Intermediate

Proficient

68

76

13

73

96

100

NOTE: Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons or households.Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (3 percent in 2003) are
excluded from these data.
SOURCE: U.S.Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Correct answer
Question 3 (Quantitative): Either of the following:
Correctly totals postage and fees: $2.61
Correctly totals incorrect fees entered on form
Percentage of adults who answered the question correctly, 2003
All Prison Inmates

All Adults in Households

Below Basic

Basic

Intermediate

Proficient

72

78

33

88

96

99

NOTE: Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons or households.Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (3 percent in 2003) are
excluded from these data.
SOURCE: U.S.Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

90

Appendix A: Sample Assessment Questions

91

B
1

CHAPTER
APPENDIX
ONE
B
toc

Definitions of All Subpopulations
and Background Variables Reported
ome background variables were included in
the analyses in more than one chapter.Those
variables are listed under the chapter where
they first appeared. For the exact wording of background questions, see http://nces.ed.gov/naal.

S

Chapter 2
Prison Population
The 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy
included a nationally representative probability
sample of inmates age 16 and older in federal and
state prisons. Prison data collection was conducted
from March through July of 2004.
Household Population
The 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy
included a nationally representative probability
sample of adults age 16 and older living in households.The household sample also included adults
in six states that chose to participate in a concurrent State Assessment of Adult Literacy:
Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri,
Oklahoma, and New York. Each sample was
weighted to represent its share of the total population of the United States. Household data collection was conducted from March 2003 through
February 2004.

93

Literacy Behind Bars

Race and Ethnicity
In 2003, all respondents were asked two or three
questions about their race and ethnicity. The first
question asked them to indicate whether they were
Hispanic or Latino.
If a respondent answered that he or she was Hispanic
or Latino, the respondent was asked to choose one or
more of the following groups to describe his or her
Hispanic origin:
■

Mexican, Mexican American, or Chicano

■

Puerto Rican or Puerto Rican American

■

Cuban or Cuban American

■

Central or South American

■

Other Hispanic or Latino background

Respondents who identified more than one of the
groups to describe their Hispanic origin, were classified as “Other Hispanic or Latino background.”
Then, all respondents, including those who indicated
they were Hispanic or Latino, were asked to choose
one or more of the following groups to describe
themselves:

In 1992, the race and ethnicity questions were somewhat different. Respondents were first asked to
choose one race from among the following:
■

White

■

Black (African American)

■

American Indian

■

Alaskan Native

■

Asian

■

Other

They were then asked if they were of Spanish or
Hispanic origin or descent. If they indicated they
were, they were asked to choose from among the
same groups as on the 2003 survey to describe their
Hispanic ethnicity.
Because respondents in 2003 were not offered an
“other” category to describe their race and respondents in 1992 were limited to choosing one race,
caution should be exercised when comparing 1992
and 2003 results.

Gender
Interviewers recorded the gender of each respondent.

■

White

■

Black or African American

Highest Educational Attainment

■

Asian

■

American Indian or Alaskan Native

■

Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander

Respondents were asked to indicate the highest level
of education they had completed. The following
options were provided:

Individuals who responded yes to the first question
were coded as Hispanic, regardless of their answer to
the second question. Individuals who identified more
than one group on the second question were coded
as Multiracial. Respondents of Native Hawaiian or
Pacific Islander origin were grouped with those of
Asian origin.The White, Black, and Hispanic groups
are reported separately.The interviewer recorded the
race/ethnicity of respondents who refused to answer
the question.
94

■

Still in high school (asked in household survey
only; not applicable to prison population)

■

Less than high school (0-8 years)

■

Some high school (9-12 years but did not graduate)

■

GED or high school equivalency

■

High school graduate

■

Vocational, trade, or business school after high
school

Appendix B: Definitions of All Subpopulations and Background Variables Reported

Because of the small number of inmates whose parents had education beyond high school, all responses
that indicated postsecondary education were
grouped into a single category.

■

College: less than 2 years

■

College: Associate’s degree (A.A.)

■

College: 2 or more years, no degree

■

College graduate (B.A. or B.S.)

■

Postgraduate, no degree

Chapter 3

■

Postgraduate degree (M.S., M.A., Ph.D., M.D.,
etc.)

Veteran’s Status

Respondents who reported less than high school or
some high school were asked how many years of
education they had completed. Because of the small
number of inmates with education beyond a
GED/high school equivalency certificate or a high
school diploma, respondents who indicated that they
had any education beyond high school were grouped
in a single category labeled “postsecondary.”

Respondents were asked whether they had ever
served on active duty in the U.S. Armed Forces.

Age

Learning Disability

All respondents were asked to report their birthdates,
and this information was used to calculate their age.
Age was collapsed into the following categories: 16
to 24, 25 to 39, 40 and older.

Respondents were asked whether they had ever been
diagnosed or identified as having a learning disability.

Language Spoken Before Starting School

Respondents were asked the date they were admitted to prison most recently.

All respondents were asked what language or languages they learned to speak before starting school.
Their responses were then used to divide respondents into three groups: English only, English and
other language (including Spanish), Other only
(including Spanish).

Parents’ Educational Background
All respondents were asked about the highest level of
education completed by their mother and father.The
response options provided were the same as the
response options for the respondent educational
attainment question. Parents’ educational background was coded on the basis of whichever parent
had the higher level of educational attainment.

Overall Health
Respondents were asked how, in general, they would
rate their overall health.They were given the following response options: excellent, very good, good, fair,
poor.

Date Incarcerated

Chapter 4
Completion of Any Additional Education in Prison
Inmates were asked whether they had completed any
additional education since their most recent admission to prison.

Expected Date of Release
Inmates were asked whether they had a definite date
on which they expected to be released, in what month
and year they would be released, or whether they
expected to ever be released from prison. Expected
date of release was categorized as 2 years or less or
95

Literacy Behind Bars

more than 2 years from the date of the interview.The
sample size did not support reporting separately on
inmates who did not expect to be released, so they
were included in the “more than 2 years” category.

GED Earned While in Prison
Inmates were asked to indicate the highest level of
education they had completed prior to their most
recent admission to prison and after their admission
to prison. They were also asked whether they were
currently enrolled in any academic classes and how
long ago they last took a class to improve their basic
skills. Inmates were placed in the following categories: GED or high school diploma earned prior to
prison; GED or high school diploma earned in
prison; currently enrolled in academic or basic skill
classes; no GED or high school diploma earned and
not currently enrolled academic or basic skill classes.

Inmates on a Waiting List for Academic Classes
Inmates were asked whether they were currently
enrolled in classes and how many hours they spent in
any class as a student during the past week. If inmates
indicated they were not currently enrolled in classes,
they were asked whether they were on a waiting list
for academic classes.

Length of Time in Prison Vocational Training
Inmates were asked whether since their most recent
admission to prison they had been a student in a
vocational training program, excluding prison work
assignments, and how long they had spent altogether
in vocational training. Inmates were grouped according to the length of time in prison vocational training: no participation, less than 6 months, 6 to 12
months, 1 year or more.

96

Participation in Reading-, Writing-, Mathematics-,
Computer-, and Communication-Related Job Training
Inmates were asked in separate questions whether
during the past year they had participated in any
training or education, including courses, workshops,
formal on-the-job training, or apprenticeships,
intended to improve their English reading skills,
writing skills, arithmetic or mathematics skills, computer skills, or communication skills.

Vocational Training Participation
Inmates were asked whether since their most recent
admission to prison they had been a student in a
vocational training program, excluding prison work
assignments, and whether they were currently students in a vocational training program. Inmates were
identified as no participation, past participation, or
current participation in vocation training in prison.

Inmates on a Waiting List for Vocational Training
Inmates were asked whether they were currently
enrolled in a vocational training program and
whether they were on a waiting list for any vocational training programs.

Information Technology (IT) Certification
All respondents were asked whether they had
received any type of information technology skill
certification sponsored by a hardware or software
manufacturer or an industry or professional association and whether they had passed a test to get the
certification.Those who answered yes to both questions were counted as receiving IT certification.
Inmates who answered yes to the question asking
whether they had prepared for the test with a class
offered in prison, jail, or other correctional facility
were categorized as having obtained the certification
while incarcerated.

Appendix B: Definitions of All Subpopulations and Background Variables Reported

Other Job Certification

Computer Usage

All respondents were asked whether they had ever
received any type of job-related skill certification
recognized by a licensing board or an industry or
professional association other than information technology and whether they had passed a test to get the
certification.Those who answered yes to both questions were counted as receiving other job certification. Inmates who answered yes to the question asking whether they had prepared for the test with a
class offered in prison, jail, or other correctional facility were categorized as having obtained the certification while incarcerated.

Respondents were asked whether they ever used a
computer. If they did, in separate questions they were
asked to indicate how often they used a word processing program to write, used a spreadsheet program, or
looked up information on a CD-ROM. They were
given the following options: never, less than once a
week, once a week, a few times a week, every day.

Chapter 5
Work Assignment
Inmates were asked whether they currently had a
prison work assignment.

Literacy Practices
Respondents were asked to indicate how often they
read newspapers or magazines in English, books in
English, and letters and notes in English in separate
questions. They were given the following options:
never, less than once a week, once a week, a few
times a week, every day.

Chapter 62
Type of Offense

Reading as Part of Prison Work Assignment
Inmates were asked to indicate how often they read
as part of their current jobs in prison. They were
given the following options: every day, a few times a
week, once a week, less than once a week, never.

Writing as Part of Prison Work Assignment
Inmates were asked to indicate how often they wrote
as part of their current jobs in prison. They were
given the following options: every day, a few times a
week, once a week, less than once a week, never.

Library Access
Inmates were asked to indicate how often they used
the services of a library for any reason. They were
given the following options: every day, a few times a
week, once a week, less than once a week, never.

Inmates were asked to indicate for which offenses
they were currently in prison. If they indicated more
than one, they were asked for which of these offenses they had received the longest sentence. The coding of this variable was based on the offense for
which the inmate received the longest sentence.
Offenses were coded as follows:
Violent: murder, negligent manslaughter, kidnapping, rape, robbery, assault, other violent
crime
Property: burglary, larceny, motor vehicle theft,
arson, fraud, stolen property, other property
crime

2 The

variable coding in chapter 6 follows the conventions used by
the Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice. For
example, see Cohen and Reaves (2006).

97

Literacy Behind Bars

Drug: possession of drugs, trafficking drugs, other
drugs
Public order: escape from custody, flight to avoid
prosecution, weapon offense, parole violation, probation violation, rioting, habitual
offender, contempt of court, offenses against
courts, legislatures, and commissions, traffic
offenses, driving while intoxicated, driving
under the influence, family-related offenses,
drunkenness/vagrancy/disorderly conduct,
morals/decency, immigration violations,
obstruction of law enforcement, invasion of
privacy, commercialized vice, contribution to
the delinquency of a minor, liquor law violations, other public order offenses, bribery
and conflict of interest, regulatory offenses
(federal only), tax law (federal only), racketeering/extortion (federal only)

Previous Criminal History
Inmates were asked whether they had ever served
time in prison, jail, or some other correctional facility

98

as a juvenile or an adult before their most recent
admission to prison and whether they had ever been
placed on probation, either as a juvenile or as an adult.
Responses were coded into the following categories:
none, probation only, previous incarceration only, probation and previous incarceration.

Length of Incarceration
Inmates were asked to indicate in what month and
year they were admitted to prison most recently
and whether they had a definite date on which they
expected to be released. If they answered yes to having a definite date to be released, they were asked in
what month and year they would be released.Those
who did not have a definite date to be released were
asked the month and year of their earliest possible
release date.Their responses to these questions were
used to calculate the length of their incarceration:
0-60 months, 61-120 months, 121 or more
months/do not expect to be released. Because of
the sample size, the last two categories were collapsed for reporting.

C
1

CHAPTER
APPENDIX
ONE
C
toc

Technical Notes
his appendix describes the sampling, data
collection, weighting and variance estimation, scaling, and statistical testing procedures used to collect and analyze the data for the
2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy
(NAAL). Household data collection was conducted from March 2003 through February 2004;
prison data collection was conducted from March
through July 2004.

T

Sampling
The 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy
included two samples: (1) adults ages 16 and older
living in households (99 percent of the sample
weighted) and (2) inmates ages 16 and older in federal and state prisons (1 percent of the sample
weighted). Each sample was weighted to represent
its share of the total population of the United States,
and the samples were combined for reporting.
Household Sample
The 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy
household sample included a nationally representative probability sample of 35,365 households.
The household sample was selected on the basis of
a four-stage, stratified area sample: (1) primary
sampling units (PSUs) consisting of counties or
groups of contiguous counties; (2) secondary sampling units (referred to as segments) consisting of
area blocks; (3) housing units containing households; and (4) eligible persons within households.
Person-level data were collected through a screener,
99

Literacy Behind Bars

a background questionnaire, the literacy assessment,
and the oral module. Of the 35,365 sampled households, 4,671 were either vacant or not a dwelling unit,
resulting in a sample of 30,694 households.3 A total of
25,123 households completed the screener, which
was used to select survey respondents. The final
screener response rate was 81.2 percent weighted.
On the basis of the screener data, 23,732 respondents
ages 16 and older were selected to complete the
background questionnaire and the assessment; 18,186
actually completed the background questionnaire. Of
the 5,546 respondents who did not complete the
background questionnaire, 355 were unable to do so
because of a literacy-related barrier, either the inability to communicate in English or Spanish (the two
languages in which the background questionnaire
was administered) or a mental disability.
The final response rate for the background questionnaire, which included respondents who completed
the background questionnaire and respondents who
were unable to complete the background questionnaire because of language problems or a mental disability, was 76.6 percent weighted. Of the 18,186
adults ages 16 and older who completed the background questionnaire, 17,178 completed at least one
question on each of the three scales—prose, document, and quantitative—measured in the adult literacy assessment. An additional 149 were unable to
answer at least one question on each of the three
scales for literacy-related reasons.4 The final response
rate for the literacy assessment, which included

3 To increase the number of Black and Hispanic adults in the
NAAL sample, segments with moderate to high concentrations of
Black and Hispanic adults were given a higher selection probability. Segments in which Blacks or Hispanics accounted for 25 percent
or more of the population were oversampled at a rate up to three
times that of the remainder of the segments.
4

Of the 149 respondents who were unable to answer at least one
question on each of the three scales for literacy-related reasons, 65
respondents answered at least one question on one scale. The
remaining 84 respondents did not answer any questions on any scale.

100

respondents who answered at least one question on
each scale plus the 149 respondents who were unable
to do so because of language problems or a mental
disability, was 96.6 percent weighted.
Cases were considered complete if the respondent
completed the background questionnaire and at least
one question on each of the three scales or if the
respondent was unable to answer any questions
because of language issues (an inability to communicate in English or Spanish) or a mental disability. All
other cases that did not include a complete screener,
a background questionnaire, and responses to at least
one question on each of the three literacy scales were
considered incomplete or missing. Before imputation, the overall response rate for the household sample was 60.1 percent weighted.
For respondents who did not complete any literacy
tasks on any scale, no information is available about
their performance on the literacy scale they were
missing. Completely omitting these individuals from
the analyses would have resulted in unknown biases
in estimates of the literacy skills of the national population because refusals cannot be assumed to have
occurred randomly. For 859 respondents5 who
answered the background questionnaire but refused to
complete the assessment for reasons other than language issues or a mental disability, regression-based
imputation procedures were applied to impute
responses to one assessment item on each scale by
using the NAAL background data on age, gender,
race/ethnicity, education level, country of birth, census region, and metropolitan statistical area status.
On the prose and quantitative scales, a response was
imputed for the easiest task on each scale. On the
5 Of the 18,186 household respondents who completed the background questionnaire, 17,178 completed at least one question on
each of the three scales and 149 were unable to answer at least one
question on one or more of the scales for literacy-related reasons.
The remaining 859 respondents completed the background questionnaire but refused to complete the assessment.

Appendix C: Technical Notes

document scale, a response was imputed for the second easiest task because that task was also included on
the health literacy scale. In each of the logistic regression models, the estimated regression coefficients
were used to predict missing values of the item to be
imputed. For each nonrespondent, the probability of
answering the item correctly was computed and then
compared with a randomly generated number
between 0 and 1. If the probability of getting a correct answer was greater than the random number, the
imputed value for the item was 1 (correct). Otherwise
it was 0 (wrong). In addition, a wrong response on
each scale was imputed for 65 respondents who started to answer the assessment but were unable to
answer at least one question on each scale because of
language issues or a mental disability.6
The final household reporting sample—including
the imputed cases—consisted of 18,102 respondents.
These 18,102 respondents are the 17,178 respondents who completed the background questionnaire
and the assessment, plus the 859 respondents who
completed the background questionnaire but refused
to do the assessment for non-literacy-related reasons
and have imputed responses to one item on each
scale, plus the 65 respondents who started to answer
the assessment items but were unable to answer at
least one question on each scale because of language
issues or a mental disability. After including the cases
for which responses to the assessment questions were
imputed, the weighted response rate for the household sample was 62.1 percent (18,102 cases with
complete or imputed data and an additional 439
cases that had no assessment data because of language
issues or a mental disability).7
6

For a more detailed discussion of imputation see Little and
Rubin (2002).

7 The 439 cases that had no assessment data because of language
issues or a mental disability include the 355 respondents who were
unable to complete the background questionnaire for one of these
reasons, plus the 84 respondents who did not answer any questions
on any scale because of language issues or a mental disability.

The household sample was subject to unit nonresponse from the screener, background questionnaire,
literacy assessment, and oral module and to item
nonresponse to background questionnaire items.
Although all background questionnaire items had
response rates of more than 85 percent, two stages of
data collection—the screener and the background
questionnaire—had unit response rates below 85
percent and thus required an analysis of the potential for nonresponse bias.
Table C-1 presents a summary of the household
response rate.
Table C-1. Weighted and unweighted household
response rate, by survey component: 2003

Survey component
Screener
Background questionnaire
Literacy assessment
Overall response rate before imputation
Overall response rate after imputation

Weighted
Response rate
(percent)

Unweighted
Response rate
(percent)

81.2
76.6
96.6
60.1
62.1

81.8
78.1
97.2
62.1
63.9

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for
Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Prison Sample
The 2003 assessment also included a nationally representative probability sample of inmates in federal and
state prisons. A total of 114 prisons were selected to
participate in the adult literacy assessment. Of these
114 prisons, 107 agreed to participate, 3 refused, and
4 were ineligible. The final prison response rate was
97.3 percent weighted. From among the inmates in
those prisons, 1,298 inmates ages 16 and older were
randomly selected to complete the background questionnaire and assessment. Of those 1,298 selected
inmates, 1,161 completed the background questionnaire. Of the 137 who did not complete the background questionnaire, 12 were unable to do so
because of a literacy-related barrier, either the inabil-

101

Literacy Behind Bars

ity to communicate in English or Spanish (the two
languages in which the background questionnaire
was administered) or a mental disability.
The final response rate for the prison background
questionnaire, which included respondents who
completed the background questionnaire and
respondents who were unable to complete the background questionnaire because of language problems
or a mental disability, was 90.6 percent weighted. Of
the 1,161 inmates who completed the background
questionnaire, 1,125 completed at least one question
on each of the three scales—prose, document, and
quantitative—measured in the adult literacy assessment. An additional eight were unable to answer at
least one question on each of the three scales for literacy-related reasons. The final response rate for the
literacy assessment, which included respondents who
answered at least one question on each scale or were
unable to do so because of language problems or a
mental disability, was 98.9 percent weighted.
The same definition of a complete case used for the
household sample was also used for the prison sample, and the same rules were followed for imputation.
Before imputation, the final response rate for the
prison sample was 87.2 percent weighted.
One response on each scale was imputed on the basis
of background characteristics for 28 inmates who
completed the background questionnaire but had
incomplete or missing assessments for reasons that
were not literacy related. The statistical imputation
procedures were the same as for the household sample. The background characteristics used for the
missing data imputation for the prison sample were
prison security level, region of country/prison type,
age, gender, educational attainment, country of birth,
race/ethnicity, and marital status. A wrong response
on each scale was imputed for the three inmates who
started to answer the assessment but were unable to
answer at least one question on each scale because of

102

language issues or a mental disability.The final prison
reporting sample—including the imputed cases—
consisted of 1,156 respondents. After the cases for
which responses to the assessment questions were
imputed were included, the weighted response rate
for the prison sample was 88.3 percent (1,156 cases
with complete or imputed data and an additional 17
cases that had no assessment data because of language
issues or a mental disability).
Table C-2 presents a summary of the prison response
rate.
Table C-2. Weighted and unweighted prison
response rate, by survey component: 2003

Survey component
Prison
Background questionnaire
Literacy assessment
Overall response rate before imputation
Overall response rate after imputation

Weighted
Response rate
(percent)

Unweighted
Response rate
(percent)

97.3
90.6
98.9
87.2
88.3

97.3
90.4
98.8
86.8
87.9

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for
Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Nonresponse Bias
NCES statistical standards require a nonresponse bias
analysis when the unit response rate for a sample is less
than 85 percent.The nonresponse bias analysis of the
household sample revealed differences in the background characteristics of respondents who participated
in the assessment compared with those who refused.
In bivariate unit-level analyses at the screener and
background questionnaire stages, estimated percentages for respondents were compared with those for
the total eligible sample to identify any potential bias
owing to nonresponse. Although some statistically
significant differences existed, the potential for bias
was small because the absolute difference between
estimated percentages was less than 2 percent for all
domains considered. Multivariate analyses were con-

Appendix C: Technical Notes

ducted to further explore the potential for nonresponse bias by identifying the domains with the most
differential response rates. These analyses revealed
that the lowest response rates for the screener were
among dwelling units in segments with high median
income, small average household size, and a large
proportion of renters. The lowest response rates for
the background questionnaire were among males
ages 30 and older in segments with high median
income. However, the variables used to define these
areas and other pockets with low response rates were
used in weighting adjustments. The analysis showed
that weighting adjustments were highly effective in
reducing the bias.The general conclusion was that the
potential amount of nonresponse bias attributable to
unit nonresponse at the screener and background
questionnaire stages was likely to be negligible.

Data Collection
Household interviews took place in respondents’
homes; prison interviews generally took place in a
classroom or library in the prison. Whenever possible, interviewers administered the background questionnaire and assessment in a private setting. Unless
there were security concerns, a guard was not present in the room when inmates were interviewed.
Interviewers used a computer-assisted personal interviewing (CAPI) system programmed into laptop
computers. The interviewers read the background
questions from the computer screen and entered all
responses directly into the computer. Skip patterns and
follow-up probes for contradictory or out-of-range
responses were programmed into the computer.
After completing the background questionnaire,
respondents were handed a booklet with the assessment questions. The interviewers followed a script
that introduced the assessment booklet and guided
the respondent through the assessment.

Each assessment booklet began with the same seven
questions. After the respondent completed those
questions, the interviewer asked the respondent for
the book and used an algorithm to determine on the
basis of the responses to the first seven questions
whether the respondent should continue in the main
assessment or be placed in the Adult Literacy
Supplemental Assessment (ALSA). Three percent of
adults weighted (5 percent unweighted) were placed
in the ALSA.
ALSA was a performance-based assessment that
allowed adults with marginal literacy to demonstrate
what they could and could not do when asked to
make sense of various forms of print.The ALSA
started with simple identification tasks and sight
words and moved to connected text, using authentic, highly contextualized material commonly found
at home or in the community. Respondents placed
in the ALSA are included in the NAAL sample
based on their responses to the seven questions
Because the ALSA respondents got most or all of the
seven questions at the beginning of the assessment
wrong, they would have been classified into the
Below Basic level on the prose, document, and quantitative scales.
A respondent who continued in the main assessment
was given back the assessment booklet, and the interviewer asked the respondent to complete the tasks in
the booklet and guided the respondent through the
tasks. The main assessment consisted of 12 blocks of
tasks with approximately 11 questions in each block,
but each assessment booklet included only 3 blocks
of questions. The blocks were spiraled so that across
the 26 different configurations of the assessment
booklet, each block was paired with every other
block and each block appeared in each of the three
positions (first, middle, last) in a booklet.
For ALSA interviews, the interviewer read the ALSA
script from a printed booklet and classified the

103

Literacy Behind Bars

respondent’s answers into the response categories in
the printed booklet. ALSA respondents were handed
the materials they were asked to read

providing estimates of percentages of respondents
and their average scale score, this report provides
information about the uncertainty of each statistic.

Following the main assessment or ALSA, all respondents were administered the oral fluency assessment
(not discussed in this report). Respondents were handed a booklet with passages, number lists, letter lists,
word lists, and pseudoword lists to read orally.
Respondents read into a microphone that recorded
their responses on the laptop computer.

Because the assessment used clustered sampling, conventional formulas for estimating sampling variability that assume simple random sampling and hence
independence of observations are inappropriate. For
this reason, the NAAL assessment uses a Taylor series
procedure based on the sandwich estimator to estimate
standard errors (Binder 1983).

Weighting and Variance Estimation

Scaling

A complex sample design was used to select assessment respondents. The properties of a sample selected through a complex design could be very different
from those of a simple random sample in which every
individual in the target population has an equal
chance of selection and in which the observations
from different sampled individuals can be considered
to be statistically independent of one another.
Therefore, the properties of the sample for the complex data collection design were taken into account
during the analysis of the data. Standard errors calculated as though the data had been collected from a
simple random sample would generally underestimate
sampling errors. One way of addressing the properties
of the sample design was by using sampling weights
to account for the fact that the probabilities of selection were not identical for all respondents.All population and subpopulation characteristics based on the
NAAL data used sampling weights in their estimation.

As discussed above, each respondent to the NAAL
received a booklet that included 3 of the 13 assessments blocks. Because each respondent did not
answer all of the NAAL items, item response theory
(IRT) methods were used to estimate average scores
on the health, prose, document, and quantitative
literacy scales (health literacy results are not included
in this report); a simple average percent correct
would not allow for reporting results that are comparable for all respondents. IRT models the probability of answering a question correctly as a mathematical function of proficiency or skill. The main purpose of IRT analysis is to provide a common scale on
which performance on some latent trait can be
compared across groups, such as those defined by sex,
race/ethnicity, or place of birth (Hambleton and
Swaminathan 1985).

The statistics presented in this report are estimates of
group and subgroup performance based on a sample
of respondents, rather than the values that could be
calculated if every person in the nation answered
every question on the instrument. It is therefore
important to have measures of the degree of uncertainty of the estimates. Accordingly, in addition to

104

IRT models assume that an examinee’s performance
on each item reflects characteristics of the item and
characteristics of the examinee. All models assume
that all items on a scale measure a common latent
ability or proficiency dimension (e.g., prose literacy)
and that the probability of a correct response on an
item is uncorrelated with the probability of a correct
response on another item given fixed values of the
latent trait. Items are measured in terms of their

Appendix C: Technical Notes

difficulty as well as their ability to discriminate
among examinees of varying ability.
The assessment used two types of IRT models to
estimate scale scores. The two-parameter logistic
(2PL) model, which was used for dichotomous items
(that is, items that are scored either right or wrong)
takes the form
,
where
is the response of person j to item i, is
the proficiency of person j, is the slope or discrimination parameter for item i, and
is the location or
difficulty parameter for item i.
For the partial credit items, the graded response
logistic (GRL) model was used. This model follows
the 2PL model for the probability of a score of 1 (at
least partially correct):
.

standard deviations from the 1992 assessment.8 Linear
transformation was performed to transform the original scale metric to the final reporting metric.
Levels were set and items were mapped to scales based
on the scores corresponding to a 67 percent success
rate on the tasks.

Statistical Testing
The statistical comparisons in this report were based
on the t statistic. Statistical significance was determined
by calculating a t value for the difference between a
pair of means, or proportions, and comparing this
value with published tables of values at a certain level
of significance, called alpha level.The alpha level is an
a priori statement of the probability of inferring that
a difference exists when, in fact, it does not. The
alpha level used in this report is .05, based on a twotailed test.The formula used to compute the t statistic was as follows:
,

It also follows the 2PL model for the probability of a
score of 2 (completely correct):
.
In the equations above,
and
are the step
parameters corresponding to the response categories
of partially or fully correct.
The scale indeterminacy was solved by setting an origin and unit size to the reported scale means and

where
and
and
and
errors.

are the estimates to be compared
are their corresponding standard

8

The means for the 1992 assessment were 276 for prose, 271 for
document, and 275 for quantitative.The standard deviations for the
1992 assessment were 61 for prose, 61 for document, and 66 for
quantitative. The standard deviations for the 2003 assessment were
59 for prose, 57 for document, and 61 for quantitative.

105

D
C
1

CHAPTER
APPENDIX
ONE
D
C
toc

Estimates and Standard Errors for
Tables and Figures

107

Literacy Behind Bars

Table D2-1. Estimates and standard errors for Table 2-1. Percentage of the adult prison population in selected
groups: 1992 and 2003
Characteristic
Race/ethnicity
White
Black
Hispanic
Other
Gender
Male
Female
Highest educational attainment
Less than high school
Some high school
GED/high school equivalency
High school graduate
Postsecondary
Age
16–24
25–39
40+
Language spoken before starting school
English only
English and other
Other only
Parents’ highest educational attainment
Less than high school
Some high school
GED/high school equivalency/high school graduate
Postsecondary

1992

2003

35 (2.3)
45 (1.9)
16 (1.8)
3 (0.5)

32 (1.8)
46 (1.7)
18 (1.4)
5 (0.7)

94 (1.5)
6 (1.5)

94 (2.2)
6 (2.2)

13 (1.1)
36 (1.5)
17 (1.2)
14 (1.1)
20 (1.2)

9 (1.1)*
28 (1.4)*
28 (1.8)*
13 (1.1)
22 (1.4)

23 (2.2)
58 (1.6)
19 (1.5)

16 (1.7)*
52 (1.4)*
32 (1.5)*

85 (1.7)
6 (1.0)
9 (1.2)

85 (1.4)
6 (0.7)
9 (1.2)

19 (1.7)
16 (1.4)
39 (1.6)
25 (1.5)

13 (1.2)*
13 (1.2)
41 (1.9)
33 (1.5)*

*Significantly different from 1992.
NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (3 percent in 1992 and 1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this table. In 1992, respondents were allowed to identify only one race but could identify “other”as
their race. In 2003, respondents were allowed to identify multiple races but could not choose “other”as their race.The ”Other”category includes Asians, Pacific Islanders, Native Hawaiians, American Indians, and
Alaska Natives. In 2003, the “Other”category also includes adults who said they were multi-racial; in 1992, it also includes adults who chose “other”as their race. All adults of Hispanic origin are classified as
Hispanic, regardless of race. Black includes African American, and Hispanic includes Latino. Postsecondary includes any education beyond high school.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey and 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

108

Appendix D: Estimates and Standard Errors for Tables and Figures

Table D2-2. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 2-1. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy
scores of the adult prison population: 1992 and 2003
Literacy scale

1992

Prose
Document
Quantitative

2003

248 (2.0)
243 (2.6)
234 (3.4)

257 (1.9)*
249 (1.5)
249 (1.9)*

*Significantly different from 1992.
NOTE: Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (3
percent in 1992 and 1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this table.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey and 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Table D2-3. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 2-2. Percentage of the adult prison population in each
prose, document, and quantitative literacy level: 1992 and 2003
Literacy scale
Prose
Document
Quantitative

Below Basic
1992
2003
22 (1.5)
22 (1.7)
50 (2.1)

Basic
1992

16 (1.6)*
15 (1.6)*
39 (1.7)*

40 (1.4)
33 (1.5)
32 (1.3)

Intermediate
1992
2003

2003
40 (1.7)
35 (1.8)
39 (1.5)*

35 (1.6)
42 (2.0)
16 (1.3)

1992

41 (1.8)*
48 (2.1)*
20 (1.2)*

Proficient
2003

3 (0.6)
3 (0.8)
3 (0.7)

3 (0.7)
2 (0.6)
2 (0.5)

*Significantly different from 1992.
NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (3 percent in 1992 and 1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this table.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey and 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Table D2-4. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 2-3. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy
scores of the adult prison population, by race/ethnicity: 1992 and 2003
Prose
Race/ethnicity
White
Black
Hispanic
Other

1992
267 (3.3)
241 (2.4)
224 (5.6)
248 (8.2)

Document
2003
274 (3.7)
252 (2.6)*
232 (5.4)
262 (8.5)

1992
268 (3.9)
229 (2.9)
224 (5.2)
256 (10.4)

Quantitative
2003

265 (2.4)
240 (2.1)*
236 (4.7)
255 (8.5)

1992
266 ( 4.3)
216 (4.3)
212 (5.9)
251 (11.7)

2003
274 (2.9)
237 (2.6)*
231 (3.8)*
254 (8.9)

*Significantly different from 1992.
NOTE: Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (3
percent in 1992 and 1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this table. In 1992, respondents were allowed to identify only one race but could identify “other”as their race. In 2003, respondents were allowed to identify multiple races but could not choose “other”as their race.The “Other”category includes Asians, Pacific Islanders, Native Hawaiians, American Indians, and Alaska Natives. In 2003, the “Other”category also
includes adults who said they were multi-racial; in 1992, it also includes adults who chose “other”as their race. All adults of Hispanic origin are classified as Hispanic, regardless of race. Black includes African
American, and Hispanic includes Latino.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey and 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

109

Literacy Behind Bars

Table D2-5. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 2-4. Percentage of the adult prison population in each
prose, document, and quantitative literacy level, by race/ethnicity: 1992 and 2003
Literacy scale and race/ethnicity
Prose
White
Black
Hispanic
Other
Document
White
Black
Hispanic
Other
Quantitative
White
Black
Hispanic
Other

Below Basic
1992
2003

Basic
1992

2003

Intermediate
1992
2003

Proficient
1992
2003

12 (2.1)
25 (2.2)
38 (4.4)
24 (5.9)

9 (2.0)
15 (2.9)*
35 (3.6)
11 (7.0)

35 (2.6)
43 (2.2)
39 (3.3)
39 (5.8)

32 (3.1)
47 (3.7)
35 (3.0)
41 (10.4)

47 (2.9)
30 (2.2)
22 (3.5)
33 (6.0)

52 (3.6)
37 (3.8)
28 (2.8)
46 (10.9)

6 (1.7)
1 (0.6)
1 (0.6)
4 (2.8)

7 (2.1)
1 (0.9)
2 (0.9)
3 (3.9)

11 (1.9)
28 (3.2)
36 (3.6)
13 (5.4)

6 (2.2)
19 (2.8)*
23 (3.8)*
14 (5.6)

24 (2.1)
41 (3.1)
31 (2.4)
33 (6.4)

27
40
36
31

(4.2)
(2.9)
(3.0)
(7.3)

57 (2.9)
31 (3.4)
31 (3.2)
48 (7.6)

64
40
39
52

(4.6)
(3.3)
(4.2)
(8.6)

8 (2.1)
1 (0.5)
2 (0.9)
6 (4.0)

3 (1.8)*
1 (0.6)
2 (1.1)
4 (3.9)

27 (3.2)
63 (3.1)
64 (3.7)
41 (5.9)

19 (3.5)
49 (2.9)*
53 (2.8)*
34 (8.3)

39 (2.9)
28 (2.2)
26 (2.5)
31 (5.0)

45
37
32
41

(3.9)
(2.5)*
(2.3)
(7.4)

28 (2.7)
9 (1.7)
9 (2.0)
19 (3.9)

33
13
13
24

(3.6)
(1.7)
(1.7)
(6.7)

6 (1.8)
1 (0.6)
1 (0.6)
9 (3.8)

4 (1.7)
1 (0.5)
2 (0.8)
1 (1.8)

*Significantly different from 1992.
NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (3 percent in 1992 and 1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this table. In 1992, respondents were allowed to identify only one race but could identify “other”as
their race. In 2003, respondents were allowed to identify multiple races but could not choose “other”as their race.The “Other”category includes Asians, Pacific Islanders, Native Hawaiians, American Indians, and
Alaska Natives. In 2003, the “Other”category also includes adults who said they were multi-racial; in 1992, it also includes adults who chose “other”as their race. All adults of Hispanic origin are classified as
Hispanic, regardless of race. Black includes African American, and Hispanic includes Latino.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992 National Adult literacy Survey and 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Table D2-6. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 2-5. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy
scores of the adult prison population, by highest educational attainment: 1992 and 2003
Prose
Educational attainment
Less than high school
Some high school
GED/high school equivalency
High school graduate
Postsecondary

Document

1992

2003

1992

205 (7.6)
228 (2.7)
270 (3.9)
251 (5.5)
286 (3.9)

199 (7.3)
235 (3.1)
270 (3.1)
264 (4.7)
282 (3.2)

195 (6.1)
229 (2.6)
255 (3.7)
250 (5.4)
279 (3.7)

Quantitative
2003

192 (7.6)
231 (3.1)
260 (2.3)
255 (5.4)
267 (3.3)*

1992

2003

184 (9.4)
215 (3.4)
259 (4.4)
235 (6.2)
277 (4.8)

198 (7.5)
223 (3.5)
263 (2.6)
247 (5.9)
280 (3.1)

*Significantly different from 1992.
NOTE: Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (3
percent in 1992 and 1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this table. Postsecondary includes any education beyond high school.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey and 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

110

Appendix D: Estimates and Standard Errors for Tables and Figures

Table D2-7. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 2-6. Percentage of the adult prison population in each
prose, document, and quantitative literacy level, by highest educational attainment: 1992 and 2003
Literacy scale and
educational attainment
Prose
Less than high school
Some high school
GED/high school equivalency
High school graduate
Postsecondary
Document
Less than high school
Some high school
GED/high school equivalency
High school graduate
Postsecondary
Quantitative
Less than high school
Some high school
GED/high school equivalency
High school graduate
Postsecondary

Below Basic
1992
2003

Basic
1992

2003

Intermediate
1992
2003

Proficient
1992
2003

50 (4.8)
33 (3.8)
4 (4.9)
19 (4.6)
5 (1.8)

58 (5.6)
25 (4.9)
5 (2.7)
14 (3.1)
5 (1.5)

35 (3.1)
47 (3.4)
40 (11.5)
39 (4.7)
26 (3.9)

31 (4.4)
54 (5.4)
38 (6.8)
34 (3.6)
28 (3.4)

15 (3.1)
19 (3.0 )
54 (12.1)
40 (5.3)
58 (4.4)

11 (3.0)
21 (4.8)
54 (7.1)
47 (3.8)
58 (3.8)

1 (0.5)
# (†)
2 (3.5)
2 (1.5)
11 (3.4)

# (†)
# (†)
3 (2.4)
5 (2.0)
8 (2.5)

55 (4.4)
28 (2.8)
9 (4.0)
19 (3.9)
5 (1.5)

56 (5.8)
22 (7.2)
5 (2.6)
15 (3.9)
5 (2.9)

29
41
34
31
21

(2.8)
(2.8)
(6.9)
(3.3)
(2.9)

30 (3.6)
48 (7.4)
33 (5.4)
28 (4.5)
27 (6.0)

15
31
55
46
63

(2.8)
(3.2)
(7.6)
(4.2)
(4.0)

14 (3.5)
30 (8.1)
60 (5.9)
54 (5.5)
65 (6.6)

1 (0.5)
1 (0.5)
1 (1.7)
4 (2.0)
11 (3.1)

# (†)
# (†)
2 (1.7)
3 (2.4)
3 (3.0)

75 (4.4)
64 (3.1)
29 (7.5)
49 (4.2)
21 (3.7)

74 (5.1)
62 (4.6)
23 (5.3)
41 (4.2)
15 (3.3)

16
29
47
33
38

(2.3)
(2.4)
(6.7)
(3.3)
(3.6)

21 (3.7)
30 (3.9)
53 (5.6)
34 (3.2)
44 (4.3)

7
7
22
16
33

(2.4)
(1.5)
(6.1)
(2.5)
(3.5)

5 (2.0)
8 (2.1)
23 (4.8)
22 (2.7)
36 (4.0)

1 (0.8)
1 (0.5)
2 (1.9)
2 (1.2)
8 (2.7)

# (†)
# (†)
1 (1.2)
3 (1.1)
5 (2.3)

†Not applicable.
#Rounds to zero.
NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (3 percent in 1992 and 1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this table. Postsecondary includes any education beyond high school.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey and 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Table D2-8. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 2-7. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy
scores of the adult prison population, by gender: 1992 and 2003
Prose
Gender

1992

Male
Female

249 (2.0)
244 (8.4)

Document
2003
257 (2.0)*
259 (5.6)

Quantitative

1992

2003

1992

243 (2.6)
242 (11.0)

249 (1.6)
249 (8.6)

235 (3.4)
221 (12.1)

2003
250 (1.9)*
237 (9.0)

*Significantly different from 1992.
NOTE: Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (3
percent in 1992 and 1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this table.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey and 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

111

Literacy Behind Bars

Table D2-9. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 2-8. Percentage of the adult prison population in each
prose, document, and quantitative literacy level, by gender: 1992 and 2003
Literacy scale and gender
Prose
Male
Female
Document
Male
Female
Quantitative
Male
Female

Below Basic
1992
2003

Basic
1992

2003

Intermediate
1992
2003

Proficient
1992
2003

22 (1.5)
25 (5.6)

17 (1.6)*
9 (6.9)

40 (1.5)
39 (4.9)

39 (1.7)
49 (11.8)

35 (1.6)
34 (5.4)

41 (1.9)*
42 (12.3)

3 (0.6)
3 (1.9)

4 (0.7)
1 (3.0)

22 (1.7)
22 (5.9)

15 (1.7)*
15 (9.3)

33 (1.5)
33 (6.9)

35 (1.8)
35 (10.9)

42 (2.0)
42 (8.3)

48 (2.2)*
49 (12.6)

3 (0.8)
3 (2.7)

2 (0.6)
2 (3.2)

49 (2.2)
59 (7.3)

39 (1.7)*
47 (8.0)

32 (1.3)
27 (4.6)

39 (1.5)*
38 (6.6)

16 (1.3)
12 (5.6)

20 (1.2)*
15 (5.2)

3 (0.7)
2 (2.0)

2 (0.5)
1 (1.4)

*Significantly different from 1992.
NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (3 percent in 1992 and 1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this table.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey and 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Table D2-10. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 2-9. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy
scores of the adult prison population, by age: 1992 and 2003
Prose
Age
16–24
25–39
40+

1992
251 (4.3)
247 (2.3)
250 (4.8)

Document
2003
255 (4.8)
260 (2.3)*
252 (3.1)

1992
250 (3.9)
242 (2.7)
238 (6.7)

Quantitative
2003

248 (4.2)
254 (2.0)*
240 (2.8)

1992
236 (5.1)
231 (3.7)
241 (7.2)

2003
246 (4.8)
252 (2.1)*
245 (4.0)

*Significantly different from 1992.
NOTE: Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (3
percent in 1992 and 1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this table.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey and 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

112

Appendix D: Estimates and Standard Errors for Tables and Figures

Table D2-11. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 2-10. Percentage of the adult prison population in each
prose, document, and quantitative literacy level, by age: 1992 and 2003
Literacy scale and age
Prose
16–24
25–39
40+
Document
16–24
25–39
40+
Quantitative
16–24
25–39
40+

Below Basic
1992
2003

Basic
1992

2003

Intermediate
1992
2003

Proficient
1992
2003

18 (4.1)
24 (1.5)
21 (3.6)

19 (3.8)
13 (2.1)*
20 (2.2)

45 (4.5)
37 (1.5)
40 (3.4)

38 (3.6)
40 (2.5)
40 (2.3)

35 (4.9)
35 (1.6)
36 (3.8)

40 (4.3)
45 (2.7)*
37 (2.3)

3 (1.7)
3 (0.6)
4 (1.6)

4 (1.7)
3 (1.0)
3 (1.0)

17 (2.6)
23 (1.8)
28 (4.2)

14 (4.2)
11 (2.0)*
21 (3.1)

33 (3.0)
33 (1.6)
30 (2.6)

37 (5.1)
33 (2.6)
37 (3.1)

47 (3.6)
42 (2.3)
37 (3.8)

47 (6.0)
53 (3.1)*
41 (3.6)

3 (1.5)
3 (0.7)
5 (1.7)

2 (1.7)
2 (1.0)
1 (0.8)*

48 (4.1)
52 (2.3)
46 (4.0)

43 (4.4)
36 (2.3)*
42 (2.9)

36 (2.9)
31 (1.5)
30 (2.5)

37 (3.8)
42 (2.2)*
35 (2.2)

14 (2.5)
15 (1.3)
19 (2.5)

18 (2.8)
20 (1.7)*
20 (2.1)

2 (1.1)
3 (0.7)
5 (1.4)

2 (1.3)
2 (0.7)
2 (0.8)

*Significantly different from 1992.
NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (3 percent in 1992 and 1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this table.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey and 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Table D2-12. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 2-11. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy
scores of the adult prison population, by language spoken before starting school: 1992 and 2003
Prose
Language spoken before starting school
English only
English and other
Other only

1992
252 (2.1)
238 (8.5)
211 (8.6)

Document
2003
261 (1.9)*
255 (7.5)
207 (10.3)

Quantitative

1992

2003

246 (2.7)
242 (5.3)
213 (7.8)

251 (1.4)
250 (7.5)
210 (9.3)

1992
237 (3.4)
239 (10.3)
197 (9.3)

2003
252 (2.0)*
243 (6.0)
219 (7.2)

*Significantly different from 1992.
NOTE: Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (3
percent in 1992 and 1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this table.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey and 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

113

Literacy Behind Bars

Table D2-13. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 2-12. Percentage of the adult prison population in each
prose, document, and quantitative literacy level, by language spoken before starting school: 1992
and 2003
Literacy scale and
language spoken before starting school
Prose
English only
English and other
Other only
Document
English only
English and other
Other only
Quantitative
English only
English and other
Other only

Below Basic
1992
2003

Basic
1992

2003

Intermediate
1992
2003

Proficient
1992
2003

19 (1.6)
32 (4.9)
47 (6.0)

13 (1.5)*
15 (5.4)*
51 (6.0)

40 (1.7)
37 (4.0)
34 (3.9)

40 (2.0)
43 (7.3)
30 (3.8)

38 (1.8)
26 (3.7)
18 (3.8)

44 (2.2)*
39 (8.0)
18 (3.7)

3 (0.7)
5 (2.3)
1 (0.7)

3 (0.9)
3 (3.1)
2 (1.0)

21 (1.7)
20 (4.3)
43 (5.7)

13 (1.5)*
12 (8.7)
40 (5.5)

32 (1.7)
37 (4.8)
30 (3.5)

35 (1.9)
37 (12.0)
33 (3.3)

44 (2.1)
40 (5.6)
26 (4.7)

50 (2.1)*
49 (14.3)
26 (4.3)

4 (0.9)
2 (1.9)
1 (0.6)

2 (0.6)
2 (3.5)
1 (0.6)

48 (2.3)
48 (6.2)
70 (4.4)

37 (1.8)*
44 (7.0)
60 (5.3)

33 (1.5)
32 (4.3)
20 (2.6)

40 (1.6)*
39 (6.2)
30 (3.9)*

16 (1.4)
16 (3.7)
9 (2.4)

21 (1.4)*
16 (4.7)
10 (2.6)

3 (0.8)
4 (2.6)
2 (0.9)

2 (0.6)
1 (1.4)
1 (1.0)

*Significantly different from 1992.
NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (3 percent in 1992 and 1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this table.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey and 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Table D2-14. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 2-13. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy
scores of the adult prison population, by parents’ highest educational attainment: 1992 and 2003
Prose
Parents’ educational attainment

Document

Quantitative

1992

2003

1992

2003

1992

2003

Less than high school
Some high school

237 (6.6)
248 (5.3)

234 (5.0)
258 (4.6)

231 (5.2)
236 (5.3)

232 (5.7)
247 (4.4)

219 (8.4)
230 (7.6)

236 (5.2)
252 (5.5)*

High school graduate1
Postsecondary

256 (2.9)
268 (4.7)

258 (2.6)
271 (3.1)

251 (3.4)
268 (4.0)

249 (2.8)
260 (2.2)

240 (4.0)
262 (4.9)

248 (3.4)
263 (3.5)

*Significantly different from 1992.
1High school graduate category includes GRE and high school equivalency.
NOTE: Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (3
percent in 1992 and 1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this table. Postsecondary includes any education beyond high school.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey and 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

114

Appendix D: Estimates and Standard Errors for Tables and Figures

Table D2-15. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 2-14. Percentage of the adult prison population in each
prose, document, and quantitative literacy level, by parents’ highest educational attainment: 1992
and 2003
Literacy scale and
parents’ educational attainment
Prose
Less than high school
Some high school
High school graduate1
Postsecondary
Document
Less than high school
Some high school

Below Basic
1992
2003

Basic
1992

2003

Intermediate
1992
2003

Proficient
1992
2003

31 (4.1)
21 (4.8)

30 (4.7)
17 (3.1)

35 (2.8)
42 (5.0)

43 (4.2)
38 (3.9)

31 (3.6)
35 (5.5)

26 (3.6)
41 (3.7)

3 (1.1)
2 (1.5)

1 (0.8)
5 (1.8)

16 (2.4)
13 (2.7)

14 (2.1)
7 (2.2)

41 (2.8)
33 (3.3)

40 (2.8)
36 (4.1)

40 (3.1)
47 (3.4)

43 (2.9)
53 (4.3)

3 (1.2)
7 (2.3)

3 (1.1)
4 (2.1)

30 (4.2)
26 (4.1)

27 (4.6)
17 (4.2)

33 (3.3)
35 (3.7)

35 (3.7)
35 (4.6)

35 (3.6)
36 (4.5)

36 (4.5)
47 (5.5)

3 (1.1)
3 (1.6)

2 (1.2)
2 (1.7)

High school graduate1
Postsecondary
Quantitative
Less than high school
Some high school

16 (2.5)
8 (2.4)

13 (3.5)
8 (2.3)

32 (2.7)
26 (3.5)

37 (4.5)
32 (3.8)

49 (3.3)
60 (4.4)

49 (5.2)
58 (4.1)

3 (1.3)
6 (2.6)

1 (1.2)
2 (1.4)

58 (4.5)
52 (4.7)

49 (6.4)
37 (4.4)*

27 (2.6)
31 (3.1)

38 (5.1)
38 (3.8)

13 (2.5)
14 (2.9)

13 (3.6)
22 (3.4)

2 (1.1)
3 (1.4)

1 (1.0)
3 (1.5)

High school graduate1
Postsecondary

46 (3.1)
32 (3.7)

39 (3.5)
30 (3.0)

35 (2.4)
37 (3.0)

41 (2.9)
40 (2.8)

17 (1.8)
24 (2.8)

19 (2.4)
26 (2.5)

2 (0.9)
6 (2.0)

1 (0.8)
5 (1.4)

*Significantly different from 1992.
1High school graduate category includes GRE and high school equivalency.
NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (3 percent in 1992 and 1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this table. Postsecondary includes any education beyond high school.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey and 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

115

Literacy Behind Bars

Table D3-1. Estimates and standard errors for Table 3-1. Percentage of the adult prison and household populations in selected groups: 2003
Characteristic
Race/ethnicity
White
Black
Hispanic
Other
Gender
Male
Female
Highest educational attainment
Still in high school
Less than high school
Some high school
GED/high school equivalency
High school graduate
Postsecondary
Age
16–24
25–39
40+
Language spoken before starting school
English only
English and other
Other only
Parents’ highest educational attainment
Less than high school
Some high school
GED/high school equivalency/high school graduate
Postsecondary
Veteran’s status
Veteran
Not a veteran
Self-reported health
Poor
Fair
Good
Very good
Excellent
Learning disability diagnosis
Yes
No

Prison

Household

32 (1.8)
46 (1.7)
18 (1.4)
5 (0.7)

71 (1.3)*
11 (0.8)*
12 (1.2)*
6 (0.6)

94 (2.2)
6 (2.2)

48 (0.5)*
52 (0.5)*

† (†)
9 (1.1)
28 (1.4)
28 (1.8)
13 (1.1)
22 (1.4)

3 (0.2)*
6 (0.3)*
10 (0.4)*
5 (0.3)*
26 (0.6)*
51 (1.0)*

16 (1.7)
52 (1.4)
32 (1.5)

17 (0.5)
27 (0.5)*
56 (0.6)*

85 (1.4)
6 (0.7)
9 (1.2)

81 (1.1)*
6 (0.4)
13 (0.9)*

13 (1.2)
13 (1.2)
41 (1.9)
33 (1.5)

18 (0.7)*
9 (0.4)*
31 (0.6)*
42 (0.7)*

10 (0.9)
90 (0.9)

13 (0.5)*
87 (0.5)*

4 (0.5)
11 (0.9)
22 (1.2)
35 (1.8)
28 (1.7)

4 (0.2)
11 (0.4)
24 (0.5)*
36 (0.5)
26 (0.6)

17 (1.1)
84 (1.1)

6 (0.3)*
94 (0.3)*

†Not applicable.
*Significantly different from prison population.
NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons or households. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent of the prison sample and 3 percent of the household sample in 2003) are excluded from this table.The ‘Other’ category includes Asians,
Pacific Islanders, Native Hawaiians, American Indians, Alaska Natives, and multi-racial adults. All adults of Hispanic origin are classified as Hispanic, regardless of race. Black includes African American, and Hispanic
includes Latino.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

116

Appendix D: Estimates and Standard Errors for Tables and Figures

Table D3-2. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 3-1. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy
scores of the adult prison and household populations: 2003
Literacy scale

Prison

Prose
Document
Quantitative

Household

257 (1.9)
249 (1.5)
249 (1.9)

275 (1.3)*
271 (1.2)*
283 (1.2)*

*Significantly different from prison population.
NOTE: Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons or households.Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental
disabilities (1 percent of the prison sample and 3 percent of the household sample in 2003) are excluded from this table.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Table D3-3. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 3-2. Percentage of the adult prison and household populations in each prose, document, and quantitative literacy level: 2003
Literacy scale

Below Basic
Prison Household

Prison

Prose
Document
Quantitative

16 (1.6)
15 (1.6)
39 (1.7)

40 (1.7)
35 (1.8)
39 (1.5)

14 (0.6)
12 (0.5)
21 (0.6)*

Basic
Household
29 (0.6)*
22 (0.5)*
33 (0.5)*

Intermediate
Prison Household

Proficient
Prison Household

41 (1.8)
48 (2.1)
20 (1.2)

3 (0.7)
2 (0.6)
2 (0.5)

44 (0.7)
53 (0.7)*
33 (0.5)*

13 (0.5)*
13 (0.6)*
14 (0.5)*

*Significantly different from prison population.
NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons or households. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent of the prison sample and 3 percent of the household sample in 2003) are excluded from this table.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Table D3-4. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 3-3. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy
scores of the adult prison and household populations, by race/ethnicity: 2003
Race/ethnicity
White
Black
Hispanic
Other

Prison
274 (3.7)
252 (2.6)
232 (5.4)
262 (8.5)

Prose
Household
289 (1.5)*
243 (1.8)*
216 (3.6)*
271 (3.5)

Prison
265 (2.4)
240 (2.1)
236 (4.7)
255 (8.5)

Document
Household
282 (1.5)*
238 (2.2)
224 (3.6)*
270 (3.7)

Prison
274 (2.9)
237 (2.6)
231 (3.8)
254 (8.9)

Quantitative
Household
297 (1.3)*
238 (2.2)
233 (3.2)
279 (3.9)*

*Significantly different from prison population.
NOTE: Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons or households.Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental
disabilities (1 percent of the prison sample and 3 percent of the household sample in 2003) are excluded from this table.The ‘Other’ category includes Asians, Pacific Islanders, Native Hawaiians, American Indians,
Alaska Natives, and multi-racial adults. All adults of Hispanic origin are classified as Hispanic, regardless of race. Black includes African American and Hispanic includes Latino.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

117

Literacy Behind Bars

Table D3-5. Estimates and standard errors for Table 3-2. Average prose literacy scores of the adult prison and
household populations, by race/ethnicity and age: 2003
Race/ethnicity and age

Prison

White
16–24
25–39
40+
Black
16–24
25–39
40+
Hispanic
16–24
25–39
40+

Household

285 (6.2)
275 (4.1)
267 (6.1)

287 (2.4)
303 (2.1)*
283 (1.7)*

238 (7.6)
260 (2.9)
248 (3.3)

249 (2.7)
253 (2.8)
234 (2.6)*

260 (11.8)
229 (6.1)
218 (10.6)

235 (4.4)
213 (4.6)*
205 (5.4)

*Significantly different from prison population.
NOTE: Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons or households.Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental
disabilities (1 percent of the prison sample and 3 percent of the household sample in 2003) are excluded from this table. All adults of Hispanic origin are classified as Hispanic, regardless of race. Black includes
African American and Hispanic includes Latino.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Table D3-6. Estimates and standard errors for Table 3-3. Average prose literacy scores of the adult prison and
household populations, by race/ethnicity and date incarcerated: 2003
Race/ethnicity
White
Black

Incarcerated prior to 2002
275 (5.4)*
255 (2.8)*

Incarcerated 2002 or later
273 (3.9)*
249 (4.0)

Household
289 (1.5)
243 (1.8)

*Significantly different from household population.
NOTE: Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons or households.Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent of the prison sample and 3 percent of the household sample in 2003) are excluded from this table. Because of sample size, theses analyses are not reported for the Hispanic population.
Black includes African American.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

118

Appendix D: Estimates and Standard Errors for Tables and Figures

Table D3-7. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 3-4. Percentage of the adult prison and household populations in each prose, document, and quantitative literacy level, by race/ethnicity: 2003
Literacy scale and race/ethnicity
Prose
White
Black
Hispanic
Other
Document
White
Black
Hispanic
Other
Quantitative
White
Black
Hispanic
Other

Below Basic
Prison Household

Prison

9 (2.0)
15 (2.9)
35 (3.6)
11 (7.0)

7 (0.5)
24 (1.4)*
45 (1.8)*
13 (1.7)

32 (3.1)
47 (3.7)
35 (3.0)
41 (10.4)

6 (2.2)
19 (2.8)
23 (3.8)
14 (5.6)

8 (0.5)
24 (1.8)
36 (1.7)*
11 (1.6)

27
40
36
31

19 (3.5)
49 (2.9)
53 (2.8)
34 (8.3)

13 (0.7)
47 (1.8)
50 (1.7)
23 (2.4)

45
37
32
41

Basic
Household

Intermediate
Prison Household

Proficient
Prison Household

25 (0.8)*
43 (1.2)
29 (1.0)
32 (2.0)

52 (3.6)
37 (3.8)
28 (2.8)
46 (10.9)

51 (0.9)
31 (1.4)
22 (1.1)
45 (2.1)

7 (2.1)
1 (0.9)
2 (0.9)
3 (3.9)

17 (0.9)*
2 (0.5)
4 (0.5)
10 (1.6)

(4.2)
(2.9)
(3.0)
(7.3)

19 (0.7)
35 (1.4)
26 (0.8)*
24 (1.9)

64 (4.6)
40 (3.3)
39 (4.2)
52 (8.6)

58 (1.0)
40 (1.9)
33 (1.2)
54 (2.5)

3 (1.8)
1 (0.6)
2 (1.1)
4 (3.9)

15 (1.0)*
2 (0.5)
5 (0.5)*
11 (1.8)

(3.9)
(2.5)
(2.3)
(7.4)

32 (0.8)*
36 (1.3)
29 (1.0)
35 (2.0)

33 (3.6)
13 (1.7)
13 (1.7)
24 (6.7)

39 (0.8)
15 (1.1)
17 (0.9)*
32 (2.0)

4 (1.7)
1 (0.5)
2 (0.8)
1 (1.8)

17 (0.8)*
2 (0.4)
4 (0.5)
11 (1.6)*

*Significantly different from prison population.
NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons or households. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent of the prison sample and 3 percent of the household sample in 2003) are excluded from this table.The ‘Other’ category includes Asians,
Pacific Islanders, Native Hawaiians, American Indians, Alaska Natives, and multi-racial adults. All adults of Hispanic origin are classified as Hispanic, regardless of race. Black includes African American and Hispanic
includes Latino.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Table D3-8.

Estimates and standard errors for Figure 3-5. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy
scores of the adult prison and household populations, by highest educational attainment: 2003

Educational attainment
Less than high school
Some high school
GED/high school equivalency
High school graduate
Postsecondary

Prison
199 (7.3)
235 (3.1)
270 (3.1)
264 (4.7)
282 (3.2)

Prose
Household
160 (4.1)*
228 (2.0)
260 (2.2)*
262 (1.3)
302 (1.2)*

Prison
192 (7.6)
231 (3.1)
260 (2.3)
255 (5.4)
267 (3.3)

Document
Household
159 (4.5)*
230 (1.9)
257 (2.6)
258 (1.5)
293 (0.9)*

Prison
198 (7.5)
223 (3.5)
263 (2.6)
247 (5.9)
280 (3.1)

Quantitative
Household
166 (4.5)*
231 (1.8)*
266 (3.2)
269 (1.6)*
310 (0.9)*

*Significantly different from prison population.
NOTE: Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons or households.Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental
disabilities (1 percent of the prison sample and 3 percent of the household sample in 2003) are excluded from this table. Postsecondary includes any education beyond high school.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

119

Literacy Behind Bars

Table D3-9. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 3-6. Percentage of the adult prison and household populations in each prose, document, and quantitative literacy level, by highest educational attainment:
2003
Literacy scale and
educational attainment
Prose
Less than high school
Some high school
GED/high school equivalency
High school graduate
Postsecondary
Document
Less than high school
Some high school
GED/high school equivalency
High school graduate
Postsecondary
Quantitative
Less than high school
Some high school
GED/high school equivalency
High school graduate
Postsecondary

Below Basic
Prison Household

Prison

58 (5.6)
25 (4.9)
5 (2.7)
14 (3.1)
5 (1.5)

79 (2.0)*
35 (1.6)
11 (1.9)
13 (1.0)
4 (0.3)

31 (4.4)
54 (5.4)
38 (6.8)
34 (3.6)
28 (3.4)

56 (5.8)
22 (7.2)
5 (2.6)
15 (3.9)
5 (2.9)

72 (2.0)*
30 (1.6)
13 (2.0)*
13 (1.0)
4 (0.3)

74 (5.1)
62 (4.6)
23 (5.3)
41 (4.2)
15 (3.3)

84 (1.7)
53 (1.6)
26 (3.2)
24 (1.4)*
7 (0.4)*

Basic
Household

Intermediate
Prison Household

Proficient
Prison Household

17 (1.6)*
42 (1.3)*
45 (2.9)
39 (1.2)
19 (0.7)*

11 (3.0)
21 (4.8)
54 (7.1)
47 (3.8)
58 (3.8)

4 (0.8)*
22 (1.3)
42 (3.0)
44 (1.3)
54 (0.9)

# (†)
# (†)
3 (2.4)
5 (2.0)
8 (2.5)

# (†)
1 (0.4)*
3 (1.1)
4 (0.6)
23 (0.9)*

30 (3.6)
48 (7.4)
33 (5.4)
28 (4.5)
27 (6.0)

18 (1.2)*
36 (1.2)
30 (2.4)
29 (1.1)
15 (0.5)*

14 (3.5)
30 (8.1)
60 (5.9)
54 (5.5)
65 (6.6)

9 (1.1)
33 (1.6)
53 (2.9)
52 (1.4)
63 (0.9)

# (†)
# (†)
2 (1.7)
3 (2.4)
3 (3.0)

# (†)
2 (0.4)*
4 (1.3)
5 (0.7)
19 (0.9)*

21 (3.7)
30 (3.9)
53 (5.6)
34 (3.2)
44 (4.3)

12 (1.2)*
33 (1.2)
43 (3.1)
42 (1.3)*
28 (0.7)*

5 (2.0)
8 (2.1)
23 (4.8)
22 (2.7)
36 (4.0)

3 (0.6)
13 (1.0)*
28 (3.0)
29 (1.4)*
43 (0.8)

# (†)
# (†)
1 (1.2)
3 (1.1)
5 (2.3)

# (†)
1 (0.3)
3 (1.3)
5 (0.7)
22 (0.9)*

†Not applicable.
#Rounds to zero.
*Significantly different from prison population.
NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons or households. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent of the prison sample and 3 percent of the household sample in 2003) are excluded from this table. Postsecondary includes any education beyond high school.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

120

Appendix D: Estimates and Standard Errors for Tables and Figures

Table D3-10. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 3-7. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy
scores of the White adult prison and household populations, by highest educational attainment:
2003
Literacy scale and educational attainment
Prose
Less than or some high school
GED/high school equivalency
High school graduate
Postsecondary
Document
Less than or some high school
GED/high school equivalency
High school graduate
Postsecondary
Quantitative
Less than or some high school
GED/high school equivalency
High school graduate
Postsecondary

Prison

Household

243
275
279
295

(6.4)
(4.9)
(9.6)
(4.9)

231 (2.9)
270 (2.3)
270 (1.4)
310 (1.2)*

239
267
272
278

(5.1)
(3.4)
(8.2)
(4.6)

229 (3.5)
266 (3.3)
264 (1.9)
300 (1.1)*

240
275
277
296

(5.2)
(4.0)
(9.0)
(4.4)

235 (3.1)
279 (3.8)
279 (1.7)
318 (0.9)*

*Significantly different from prison population.
NOTE: Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons or households.Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental
disabilities (1 percent of the prison sample and 3 percent of the household sample in 2003) are excluded from this table. Postsecondary includes any education beyond high school.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Table D3-11. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 3-8. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy
scores of the Black adult prison and household populations, by highest educational attainment:
2003
Literacy scale and educational attainment
Prose
Less than or some high school
GED/high school equivalency
High school graduate
Postsecondary
Document
Less than or some high school
GED/high school equivalency
High school graduate
Postsecondary
Quantitative
Less than or some high school
GED/high school equivalency
High school graduate
Postsecondary

Prison

Household

229
270
255
271

(4.4)
(3.8)
(4.8)
(4.6)

200 (3.5)*
233 (3.0)*
240 (2.6)*
268 (1.9)

221
254
243
255

(3.9)
(3.7)
(7.3)
(4.9)

196 (4.1)*
232 (5.0)*
232 (3.0)
261 (2.1)

213 (4.6)
254 (4.1)
227 (10.0)
266 (5.2)

189 (4.4)*
232 (5.5)*
232 (2.7)
266 (2.1)

*Significantly different from prison population.
NOTE: Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons or households.Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental
disabilities (1 percent of the prison sample and 3 percent of the household sample in 2003) are excluded from this table. Postsecondary includes any education beyond high school.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

121

Literacy Behind Bars

Table D3-12. Estimates and standard errors for Table 3-4. Percentage of the Black and White adult prison and
household populations in each prose, document, and quantitative literacy level, by highest educational attainment: 2003
Population, literacy scale,
and educational attainment
Whites
Prose
Less than or some high school
GED/high school equivalency
High school graduate
Postsecondary
Document
Less than or some high school
GED/high school equivalency
High school graduate
Postsecondary
Quantitative
Less than or some high school
GED/high school equivalency
High school graduate
Postsecondary
Blacks
Prose
Less than or some high school
GED/high school equivalency
High school graduate
Postsecondary
Document
Less than or some high school
GED/high school equivalency
High school graduate
Postsecondary
Quantitative
Less than or some high school
GED/high school equivalency
High school graduate
Postsecondary

Below Basic
Prison Household

20
3
11
5

Prison

Basic
Household

Intermediate
Prison Household

Proficient
Prison Household

(6.8)
(4.6)
(4.3)
(1.9)

34
5
8
2

(2.4)
(1.9)
(1.0)
(0.3)

49 (8.2)
35 (12.0)
27 (5.3)
19 (3.8)

40
40
37
15

(1.9)
(4.3)
(1.7)
(0.7)

30 (7.9)
58 (12.7)
51 (6.4)
61 (4.8)

24 (1.9)
52 (4.5)
51 (1.8)
56 (1.1)

1 (1.5)
4 (5.3)
12 (4.6)
15 (4.0)

2 (0.5)
3 (1.8)
4 (0.8)
27 (1.1)*

18 (11.6)
2 (3.6)
9 (4.7)
3 (3.3)

32
9
10
2

(2.3)
(2.3)
(1.2)
(0.3)

44 (12.8)
27 (12.0)
19 (7.3)
18 (7.8)

32
26
27
12

(1.4)
(3.2)
(1.6)
(0.6)

38 (14.1)
69 (13.0)
65 (8.4)
74 (9.0)

34 (2.2)
60 (3.9)
57 (2.0)
63 (1.2)

# (†)
2 (4.1)
7 (5.9)
6 (6.2)

3 (0.7)
5 (2.2)
6 (1.2)
23 (1.2)*

47 (6.4)
12 (11.0)
20 (8.5)
5 (5.1)

50
15
17
4

(2.5)
(4.5)
(1.7)
(0.4)

37 (5.5)
55 (14.7)
39 (9.1)
38 (10.2)

33
45
42
24

(1.7)
(5.7)
(1.9)
(0.8)

15 (4.3)
32 (14.2)
36 (8.4)
49 (10.2)

15 (1.5)
37 (5.5)
35 (2.0)
46 (1.0)

1 (0.6)
2 (3.8)
5 (4.9)
8 (6.9)

2 (0.5)
4 (2.6)
6 (1.1)
26 (1.1)*

29
5
14
4

(8.9)
(3.2)
(6.0)
(4.4)

54
23
23
10

(2.8)*
(8.6)
(3.0)
(1.2)

55 (9.4)
39 (8.7)
44 (7.5)
40 (10.3)

36
63
49
37

(2.3)
(9.8)
(3.2)
(2.0)

16 (7.7)
53 (9.0)
41 (7.3)
53 (10.7)

10 (1.3)
15 (7.7)*
27 (3.2)
49 (2.1)

# (†)
3 (3.1)
1 (1.5)
3 (3.9)

# (†)
# (†)
1 (0.7)
5 (1.0)

33
9
20
7

(6.9)
(5.1)
(7.2)
(8.0)

52
24
24
8

(2.7)*
(7.6)
(4.3)
(1.7)

44 (5.9)
38 (7.6)
35 (7.2)
38 (13.9)

31
44
42
30

(1.9)*
(8.1)
(4.2)
(2.9)

23 (6.2)
52 (8.4)
43 (8.6)
53 (15.5)

17 (1.9)
33 (8.7)
33 (4.9)
59 (3.3)

# (†)
1 (2.2)
2 (2.6)
1 (3.5)

# (†)
# (†)
# (†)
3 (1.3)

70
31
54
24

(6.6)
(9.1)
(6.7)
(7.3)

76 (2.1)
53 (11.9)
52 (3.5)
24 (2.6)

26
51
31
47

20 (1.6)
40 (10.7)
37 (2.9)
46 (2.5)

4
17
14
26

5 (0.8)
7 (5.5)
10 (1.9)
27 (2.4)

# (†)
1 (1.6)
1 (1.2)
2 (2.7)

# (†)
# (†)
# (†)
3 (1.0)

(5.8)
(9.1)
(5.0)
(7.6)

(2.1)
(6.5)
(4.0)
(6.5)

†Not applicable.
#Rounds to zero.
*Significantly different from prison population.
NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons or households. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent of the prison sample and 3 percent of the household sample in 2003) are excluded from this table. Postsecondary includes any education beyond high school.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

122

Appendix D: Estimates and Standard Errors for Tables and Figures

Table D3-13. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 3-9. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy
scores of the adult prison and household populations, by gender: 2003
Gender

Prison

Male
Female

257 (2.0)
259 (5.6)

Prose
Household

Prison

273 (1.6)*
277 (1.4)*

Document
Household

249 (1.6)
249 (8.6)

269 (1.5)*
272 (1.2)*

Prison

Quantitative
Household

250 (1.9)
237 (9.0)

287 (1.3)*
279 (1.3)*

*Significantly different from prison population.
NOTE: Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons or households.Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental
disabilities (1 percent of the prison sample and 3 percent of the household sample in 2003) are excluded from this table.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Table D3-14. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 3-10. Percentage of the adult prison and household populations in each prose, document, and quantitative literacy level, by gender: 2003
Literacy scale and gender
Prose
Male
Female
Document
Male
Female
Quantitative
Male
Female

Below Basic
Prison Household

Prison

Basic
Household

Intermediate
Prison Household

Proficient
Prison Household

17 (1.6)
9 (6.9)

15 (0.6)
12 (0.6)

39 (1.7)
49 (11.8)

29 (0.7)*
28 (0.6)

41 (1.9)
42 (12.3)

43 (0.7)
46 (0.8)

4 (0.7)
1 (3.0)

13 (0.6)*
14 (0.6)*

15 (1.7)
15 (9.3)

14 (0.6)
11 (0.6)

35 (1.8)
35 (10.9)

23 (0.5)*
22 (0.6)

48 (2.2)
49 (12.6)

51 (0.8)
54 (0.8)

2 (0.6)
2 (3.2)

13 (0.6)*
13 (0.6)*

39 (1.7)
47 (8.0)

21 (0.6)*
22 (0.8)*

39 (1.5)
38 (6.6)

31 (0.5)*
35 (0.7)

20 (1.2)
15 (5.2)

33 (0.5)*
32 (0.7)*

2 (0.5)
1 (1.4)

16 (0.6)*
11 (0.6)*

*Significantly different from prison population.
NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons or households. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent of the prison sample and 3 percent of the household sample in 2003) are excluded from this table.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Table D3-15. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 3-11. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy
scores of the adult prison and household populations, by age: 2003
Age
16–24
25–39
40+

Prison
255 (4.8)
260 (2.3)
252 (3.1)

Prose
Household
273 (2.1)*
284 (1.7)*
272 (1.5)*

Prison
248 (4.2)
254 (2.0)
240 (2.8)

Document
Household
274 (1.8)*
283 (1.8)*
264 (1.3)*

Prison
246 (4.8)
252 (2.1)
245 (4.0)

Quantitative
Household
275 (2.0)*
292 (1.8)*
281 (1.3)*

*Significantly different from prison population.
NOTE: Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons or households.Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental
disabilities (1 percent of the prison sample and 3 percent of the household sample in 2003) are excluded from this table.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

123

Literacy Behind Bars

Table D3-16. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 3-12. Percentage of the adult prison and household populations in each prose, document, and quantitative literacy level, by age: 2003
Literacy scale and age
Prose
16–24
25–39
40+
Document
16–24
25–39
40+
Quantitative
16–24
25–39
40+

Below Basic
Prison Household

Prison

19 (3.8)
13 (2.1)
20 (2.2)

11 (1.0)
12 (0.6)
15 (0.7)*

38 (3.6)
40 (2.5)
40 (2.3)

14 (4.2)
11 (2.0)
21 (3.1)

10 (0.9)
8 (0.7)
15 (0.6)

43 (4.4)
36 (2.3)
42 (2.9)

23 (1.3)*
17 (0.8)*
23 (0.7)*

Basic
Household

Intermediate
Prison Household

Proficient
Prison Household

32 (1.3)
25 (0.7)*
30 (0.6)*

40 (4.3)
45 (2.7)
37 (2.3)

48 (1.5)
45 (0.8)
43 (0.8)*

4 (1.7)
3 (1.0)
3 (1.0)

9 (1.0)*
18 (0.8)*
12 (0.6)*

37 (5.1)
33 (2.6)
37 (3.1)

22 (1.0)*
19 (0.7)*
24 (0.5)*

47 (6.0)
53 (3.1)
41 (3.6)

57 (1.4)
56 (1.1)
50 (0.7)*

2 (1.7)
2 (1.0)
1 (0.8)

12 (1.0)*
17 (1.1)*
11 (0.5)*

37 (3.8)
42 (2.2)
35 (2.2)

37 (1.2)
31 (0.8)*
32 (0.5)

18 (2.8)
20 (1.7)
20 (2.1)

31 (1.3)*
35 (0.8)*
32 (0.6)*

2 (1.3
2 (0.7)
2 (0.8)

9 (0.9)*
17 (1.0)*
13 (0.5)*

*Significantly different from prison population.
NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons or households. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent of the prison sample and 3 percent of the household sample in 2003) are excluded from this table.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Table D3-17. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 3-13. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy
scores of the adult prison and household populations, by language spoken before starting school:
2003
Language spoken before starting school
English only
English and other
Other only

Prison
261 (1.9)
255 (7.5)
207 (10.3)

Prose
Household
283 (1.4)*
272 (2.2)*
212 (3.5)

Prison
251 (1.4)
250 (7.5)
210 (9.3)

Document
Household
276 (1.3)*
264 (2.4)
223 (3.9)

Prison
252 (2.0)
243 (6.0)
219 (7.2)

Quantitative
Household
289 (1.2)*
278 (3.1)*
235 (4.0)

*Significantly different from prison population.
NOTE: Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons or households.Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental
disabilities (1 percent of the prison sample and 3 percent of the household sample in 2003) are excluded from this table.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

124

Appendix D: Estimates and Standard Errors for Tables and Figures

Table D3-18. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 3-14. Percentage of the adult prison and household populations in each prose, document, and quantitative literacy level, by language spoken before starting school: 2003
Literacy scale and
language spoken before starting school
Prose
English only
English and other
Other only
Document
English only
English and other
Other only
Quantitative
English only
English and other
Other only

Below Basic
Prison Household

Prison

Basic
Household

Intermediate
Prison Household

Proficient
Prison Household

13 (1.5)
15 (5.4 )
51 (6.0)

9 (0.5)*
10 (1.2)
48 (1.7)

40 (2.0)
43 (7.3)
30 (3.8)

27 (0.7)*
35 (1.9)
28 (1.1)

44 (2.2)
39 (8.0)
18 (3.7)

49 (0.8)*
47 (2.0)
21 (1.1)

3 (0.9)
3 (3.1)
2 (1.0)

15 (0.7)*
8 (1.2)
4 (0.5)

13 (1.5)
12 (8.7)
40 (5.5)

9 (0.5)*
11 (1.6)
37 (1.7)

35 (1.9)
37 (12.0)
33 (3.3)

21 (0.6)*
27 (1.8)
25 (0.8)*

50 (2.1)
49 (14.3)
26 (4.3)

56 (0.8)*
56 (2.4)
32 (1.2)

2 (0.6)
2 (3.5)
1 (0.6)

14 (0.7)*
6 (1.4)
6 (0.6)*

37 (1.8)
44 (7.0)
60 (5.3)

8 (0.6)*
21 (2.1)*
49 (1.8)*

40 (1.6)
39 (6.2)
30 (3.9)

33 (0.6)*
38 (1.9)
28 (0.9)

21 (1.4)
16 (4.7)
10 (2.6)

35 (0.6)*
31 (2.0)*
18 (1.1)*

2 (0.6)
1 (1.4)
1 (1.0)

15 (0.6)*
10 (1.6)*
6 (0.7)*

*Significantly different from prison population.
NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons or households. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent of the prison sample and 3 percent of the household sample in 2003) are excluded from this table.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Table D3-19. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 3-15. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy
scores of the adult prison and household populations, by parents’ highest educational attainment:
2003
Prison

Prose
Household

Prison

Document
Household

Prison

Less than high school
Some high school

234 (5.0)
258 (4.6)

227 (2.6)
261 (2.3)

232 (5.7)
247 (4.4)

224 (2.6)
256 (2.1)

236 (5.2)
252 (5.5)

239 (2.4)
267 (2.2)*

High school graduate1
Postsecondary

258 (2.6)
271 (3.1)

278 (1.5)*
300 (1.5)*

249 (2.8)
260 (2.2)

273 (1.5)*
293 (1.5)*

248 (3.4)
263 (3.5)

285 (1.5)*
305 (1.3)*

Parents’ educational attainment

Quantitative
Household

*Significantly different from prison population.
1High school graduate category includes GED and high school equivalency.
NOTE: Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons or households.Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental
disabilities (1 percent of the prison sample and 3 percent of the household sample in 2003) are excluded from this table. Postsecondary includes any education beyond high school.
SOURCE : U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

125

Literacy Behind Bars

Table D3-20. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 3-16. Percentage of the adult prison and household populations in each prose, document, and quantitative literacy level, by parents’ highest educational
attainment: 2003
Literacy scale and
parents’ educational attainment

Below Basic
Prison Household

Prison

Basic
Household

Prose
Less than high school
Some high school

30 (4.7)
17 (3.1)

37 (1.6 )
16 (1.3)

43 (4.2)
38 (3.9)

14 (2.1)
7 (2.2)

10 (0.7)*
5 (0.4)

27 (4.6)
17 (4.2)

High school graduate1
Postsecondary
Document
Less than high school
Some high school

Intermediate
Prison Household

Proficient
Prison Household

35 (1.1)
36 (1.6)

26 (3.6)
41 (3.7)

25 (1.1)
42 (1.7)

1 (0.8)
5 (1.8)

3 (0.4)*
6 (0.9)

40 (2.8)
36 (4.1)

30 (1.0)*
20 (0.8)*

43 (2.9)
53 (4.3)

49 (1.2)*
53 (1.0)

3 (1.1)
4 (2.1)

11 (0.8)*
22 (1.1)*

35 (1.5)
15 (1.3)

35 (3.7)
35 (4.6)

30 (0.8)
29 (1.3)

36 (4.5)
47 (5.5)

32 (1.3)
50 (1.7)

2 (1.2)
2 (1.7)

3 (0.4)
6 (0.9)

High school graduate1
Postsecondary
Quantitative
Less than high school
Some high school

13 (3.5)
8 (2.3)

8 (0.8)
4 (0.5)

37 (4.5)
32 (3.8)

23 (0.9)*
15 (0.8)*

49 (5.2)
58 (4.1)

59 (1.3)
61 (1.3)

1 (1.2)
2 (1.4)

10 (1.0)*
20 (1.3)*

49 (6.4)
37 (4.4)

46 (1.4)
28 (1.6)*

38 (5.1)
38 (3.8)

32 (0.9)
38 (1.5)

13 (3.6)
22 (3.4)

18 (0.8)
28 (1.5)

1 (1.0)
3 (1.5)

4 (0.4)*
6 (0.9)

High school graduate1
Postsecondary

39 (3.5)
30 (3.0)

18 (0.9)*
10 (0.6)*

41 (2.9)
40 (2.8)

35 (0.8)*
29 (0.8)*

19 (2.4)
26 (2.5)

35 (0.9)*
41 (0.9)*

1 (0.8)
5 (1.4)

12 (0.8)*
21 (1.0)*

*Significantly different from prison population.
1High school graduate category includes GED and high school equivalency.
NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons or households. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent of the prison sample and 3 percent of the household sample in 2003) are excluded from this table. Postsecondary includes any education beyond high school.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

126

Appendix D: Estimates and Standard Errors for Tables and Figures

Table D4-1. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 4-1. Percentage of the adult prison population, by
GED/high school diploma attainment: 2003
Population

No GED/not currently
enrolled in academic classes

No GED/currently enrolled
in academic classes in prison

Earned GED during
current incarceration

Earned GED/H.S. diploma
prior to current incarceration

All prisoners

33 (1.6)

5 (0.8)

19 (1.4)

43 (1.7)

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.Standard errors are in parentheses.Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons.Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this table.The category “earned GED/H.S.diploma prior to current incarceration”includes prison inmates who had higher levels of educational attainment (postsecondary education) prior to their current incarceration.
SOURCE: U.S.Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Table D4-2. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 4-2. Percentage of the adult prison population with a
GED/high school equivalency certificate or high school diploma, by expected date of release: 2003
Expected date of release

Percent

2 years or less
More than 2 years

65 (2.0)
60 (2.5)

NOTE: Standard errors are in parentheses.Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons.Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1
percent in 2003) are excluded from this table. The category “earned GED/H.S.diploma prior to current incarceration”includes prison inmates who had higher levels of educational attainment (postsecondary education) prior to their current incarceration.
SOURCE: U.S.Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Table D4-3. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 4-3. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy
scores of the adult prison population, by GED/high school diploma attainment: 2003
Literacy scale and GED/high school diploma attainment
Prose
No GED/not currently enrolled in academic classes
No GED/currently enrolled in academic classes
Earned GED during current incarceration
Earned GED/H.S. diploma prior to current incarceration
Document
No GED/not currently enrolled in academic classes
No GED/currently enrolled in academic classes
Earned GED during current incarceration
Earned GED/H.S. diploma prior to current incarceration
Quantitative
No GED/not currently enrolled in academic classes
No GED/currently enrolled in academic classes
Earned GED during current incarceration
Earned GED/H.S. diploma prior to current incarceration

Average
228 (3.5)
227 (7.1)
273 (4.0)
273 (2.4)
223 (3.7)
227 (6.5)
262 (2.8)
261 (2.0)
217 (3.9)
224 (7.0)
266 (3.5)
266 (2.6)

NOTE: Standard errors are in parentheses.Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons.Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1
percent in 2003) are excluded from this table. The category “earned GED/H.S.diploma prior to current incarceration”includes prison inmates who had higher levels of educational attainment (postsecondary education) prior to their current incarceration.
SOURCE: U.S.Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

127

Literacy Behind Bars

Table D4-4. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 4-4. Percentage of the adult prison population in each
prose, document, and quantitative literacy level, by GED/high school diploma attainment: 2003
Literacy scale and GED/high school diploma attainment
Prose
No GED/not currently enrolled in academic classes
No GED/currently enrolled in academic classes
Earned GED during current incarceration
Earned GED/H.S. diploma prior to current incarceration
Document
No GED/not currently enrolled in academic classes
No GED/currently enrolled in academic classes
Earned GED during current incarceration
Earned GED/H.S. diploma prior to current incarceration
Quantitative
No GED/not currently enrolled in academic classes
No GED/currently enrolled in academic classes
Earned GED during current incarceration
Earned GED/H.S. diploma prior to current incarceration

Below Basic
33
32
5
8

Basic

Intermediate

Proficient

(4.3)
(9.8)
(2.9)
(1.6)

48 (4.1)
53 (10.3)
35 (8.2)
33 (2.6)

19
16
57
53

(3.4)
(9.2)
(8.4)
(2.8)

# (†)
# (†)
3 (3.2)
6 (1.6)

32 (5.1)
27 (19.8)
3 (3.4)
9 (1.7)

41 (3.9)
48 (19.3)
32 (9.0)
29 (2.7)

27 (4.6)
25 (20.1)
63 (9.9)
59 (3.0)

# (†)
# (†)
1 (2.5)
3 (1.3)

65 (3.9)
62 (13.2)
23 (5.2)
25 (2.7)

28 (3.1)
32 (11.2)
50 (5.6)
44 (2.7)

7
6
25
28

# (†)
# (†)
2 (1.9)
3 (1.1)

(1.7)
(5.7)
(4.9)
(2.4)

†Not applicable.
#Rounds to zero.
NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this table.The category “earned GED/H.S.diploma prior to current incarceration”includes prison inmates who had higher levels of educational attainment (postsecondary education) prior to their current incarceration.
SOURCE: U.S.Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Table D4-5. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 4-5. Percentage of the adult prison population, by length
of participation in vocational training programs: 2003
Population
All prisioners

No participation

Less than 6 months

6-12 months

More than 1 year

71 (1.7)

11 (1.1)

8 (0.9)

9 (1.1)

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this table.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Table D4-6. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 4-6. Percentage of the adult prison population, by enrollment in vocational training: 2003
Population

Currently enrolled in classes

On a waiting list

Not enrolled and not on waiting list

All prisoners

10 (1.1)

14 (1.1)

77 (1.6)

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this table.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

128

Appendix D: Estimates and Standard Errors for Tables and Figures

Table D4-7. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 4-7. Percentage of the adult prison population who participated in vocational training during current incarceration, by expected date of release: 2003
Expected date of release

Percent

2 years or less
More than 2 years

27 (2.1)
32 (2.5)

NOTE: Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1
percent in 2003) are excluded from this table.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Table D4-8. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 4-8. Percentage of the adult prison population participating in vocational training who received selected types of instruction as part of the vocational training, by type of instruction: 2003
Vocational training emphasis

Percent

Reading
Writing
Mathematics
Computers
Communication

46 (3.1)
44 (2.9)
63 (3.2)
31 (2.9)
74 (2.7)

NOTE: Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1
percent in 2003) are excluded from this table.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Table D4-9. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 4-9. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy
scores of the adult prison population, by participation in vocational training: 2003
Literacy scale and participation in vocational training
Prose
Current participation
Past participation
No participation
Document
Current participation
Past participation
No participation
Quantitative
Current participation
Past participation
No participation

Average
257 (5.3)
265 (3.8)
255 (2.4)
253 (6.1)
255 (3.7)
246 (1.9)
252 (5.2)
254 (3.9)
247 (2.3)

NOTE: Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1
percent in 2003) are excluded from this table.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

129

Literacy Behind Bars

Table D4-10. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 4-10. Percentage of the adult prison population who participated in vocational training, by prose, document, and quantitative literacy level: 2003
Literacy scale and literacy level
Prose
Below Basic
Basic
Intermediate
Proficient
Document
Below Basic
Basic
Intermediate
Proficient
Quantitative
Below Basic
Basic
Intermediate
Proficient

Current participation
10
10
10
10

(2.7)
(1.6)
(1.6)
(5.8)

Past participation
(3.2)
(2.2)
(2.4)
(9.6)

77 (4.0)
72 (2.5)
68 (2.6)
69 (10.4)

9 (3.0)
9 (1.8)
10 (1.8)
16 (13.5)

14 (4.5)
19 (2.7)
21 (2.6)
26 (17.6)

78 (5.0)
73 (3.0)
69 (2.8)
58 (18.6)

9
10
10
9

17 (2.6)
22 (2.5)
19 (3.5)
13 (10.3)

75 (2.8)
68 (2.6)
70 (3.7)
78 (11.0)

(1.6)
(1.6)
(2.2)
(6.2)

13
18
22
21

No participation

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this table.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Table D4-11. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 4-11. Percentage of the adult prison and household populations who have received skill certification: 2003
Skill certification and population
IT certification
Prison
Houshold
Other certification
Prison
Houshold

Percent
6 (0.8)
8 (0.4)*
25 (1.5)
27 (0.6)

*Significantly different from prison population.
NOTE: Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons or households.Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental
disabilities (1 percent of the prison sample and 3 percent of the household sample in 2003) are excluded from this table.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

130

Appendix D: Estimates and Standard Errors for Tables and Figures

Table D4-12. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 4-12. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy
scores of the adult prison and household populations, by receipt of information technology skill
certification: 2003
Literacy scale, population, and skill certification
Prose
Prison
No IT certification
Received IT certification
Household
No IT certification
Received IT certification
Document
Prison
No IT certification
Received IT certification
Household
No IT certification
Received IT certification
Quantitative
Prison
No IT certification
Received IT certification
Household
No IT certification
Received IT certification

Average

255 (2.0)
276 (4.9)
273 (1.4)*
291 (2.0)*

247 (1.5)
267 (5.8)
269 (1.3)*
285 (2.7)*

247 (1.8)
277 (7.0)
281 (1.2)*
302 (2.4)*

*Significantly different from prison population.
NOTE: Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons or households.Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent of the prison sample and 3 percent of the household sample in 2003) are excluded from this table.
SOURCE: U. S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

131

Literacy Behind Bars

Table D4-13. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 4-13. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy
scores of the adult prison and household populations, by receipt of other job-related skill certification: 2003
Literacy scale, population, and skill certification
Prose
Prison
No other job certification
Received other job certification
Household
No other job certification
Received other job certification
Document
Prison
No other job certification
Received other job certification
Household
No other job certification
Received other job certification
Quantitative
Prison
No other job certification
Received other job certification
Household
No other job certification
Received other job certification

Average

252 (2.3)
270 (3.0)
269 (1.4)*
291 (1.6)*

246 (1.9)
255 (2.4)
266 (1.4)*
283 (1.5)*

246 (2.3)
259 (3.2)
277 (1.4)*
297 (1.4)*

*Significantly different from prison population.
NOTE: Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons or households.Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental
disabilities (1 percent of the prison sample and 3 percent of the household sample in 2003) are excluded from this table.
SOURCE: U. S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

132

Appendix D: Estimates and Standard Errors for Tables and Figures

Table D4-14. Estimates and standard errors for Figures 4-14. and 4-15. Percentage of the adult prison and
household populations in each prose, document, and quantitative literacy level, by receipt of information technology skill certification or other job-related skill certification: 2003
Literacy scale, population,
and literacy level
Prose
Prison
Below Basic
Basic
Intermediate
Proficient
Household
Below Basic
Basic
Intermediate
Proficient
Document
Prison
Below Basic
Basic
Intermediate
Proficient
Household
Below Basic
Basic
Intermediate
Proficient
Quantitative
Prison
Below Basic
Basic
Intermediate
Proficient
Household
Below Basic
Basic
Intermediate
Proficient

IT certification
Received IT certification
No IT certification

1 (1.4)
6 (2.4)
8 (2.6)
7 (12.2)
3
6
10
9

(0.5)
(0.5)
(0.6)
(1.0)

100 (1.4)
94 (2.4)
92 (2.6)
93 (12.2)
97
94
90
91

(0.5)
(0.5)
(0.6)
(1.0)

Other job-related skill certification
Received other job certification
No other job certification

10 (3.3)
23 (3.0)
32 (2.9)
24 (13.3)

90 (3.3)
77 (3.0)
68 (2.9)
76 (13.3)

12
23
31
35

88
77
69
65

(1.1)
(1.0)
(0.9)
(1.8)

(1.1)
(1.0)
(0.9)
(1.8)

2 (2.7)
5 (2.7)
8 (2.4)
10 (22.3)

98 (2.7)
95 (2.7)
92 (2.4)
90 (22.3)

16 (3.9)
24 (2.7)
28 (2.5)
26 (15.8)

84 (3.9)
76 (2.7)
72 (2.5)
74 (15.8)

3
6
10
9

97
94
90
91

13
23
31
31

87
78
70
69

(0.7)
(0.7)
(0.6)
(1.5)

(0.7)
(0.7)
(0.6)
(1.5)

(1.1)
(1.0)
(0.9)
(2.1)

(1.1)
(1.0)
(0.9)
(2.1)

2 (2.0)
8 (2.6)
10 (4.6)
9 (18.3)

98 (2.0)
93 (2.6)
90 (4.6)
91 (18.3)

19 (2.2)
28 (2.4)
30 (3.4)
26 (11.0)

81 (2.2)
72 (2.4)
70 (3.4)
74 (11.0)

5
7
9
12

95
93
91
88

16
26
32
32

84
74
68
68

(0.5)
(0.5)
(0.6)
(1.1)

(0.5)
(0.5)
(0.6)
(1.1)

(0.9)
(0.9)
(1.0)
(1.7)

(0.9)
(0.9)
(1.0)
(1.7)

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons or households. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent of the prison sample and 3 percent of the household sample in 2003) are excluded from this table.
SOURCE: U. S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

133

Literacy Behind Bars

Table D5-1. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 5-1. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy
scores of the adult prison population, by current prison work assignment: 2003
Literacy scale and work assignment
Prose
Currently has work assignment
No work assignment
Document
Currently has work assignment
No work assignment
Quantitative
Currently has work assignment
No work assignment

Average
259 (2.2)
251 (3.1)
250 (1.6)
247 (3.1)
252 (2.1)
243 (3.3)

NOTE: Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1
percent in 2003) are excluded from this table.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Table D5-2. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 5-2. Percentage of the adult prison population who had a
current prison work assignment, by prose, document, and quantitative literacy level: 2003
Literacy scale and literacy level
Prose
Below Basic
Basic
Intermediate
Proficient
Document
Below Basic
Basic
Intermediate
Proficient
Quantitative
Below Basic
Basic
Intermediate
Proficient

Percent
66
63
72
80

(5.2)
(3.3)
(3.1)
(9.4)

63 (5.6)
68 (3.4)
69 (3.2)
67 (16.3)
63
70
71
69

(3.2)
(2.8)
(3.5)
(9.9)

NOTE: Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1
percent in 2003) are excluded from this table.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

134

Appendix D: Estimates and Standard Errors for Tables and Figures

Table D5-3. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 5-3. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy
scores of the adult prison population, by frequency of reading as part of current prison work
assignment: 2003
Literacy scale and frequency
Prose
Every day
Less than every day
Never
Document
Every day
Less than every day
Never
Quantitative
Every day
Less than every day
Never

Average
263 (4.0)
257 (5.7)
257 (3.1)
256 (2.7)
246 (4.2)
246 (2.8)
255 (3.6)
251 (4.8)
249 (2.9)

NOTE: Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1
percent in 2003) are excluded from this table.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Table D5-4. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 5-4. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy
scores of the adult prison population, by frequency of writing as part of current prison work assignment: 2003
Literacy scale and frequency
Prose
Every day
Less than every day
Never
Document
Every day
Less than every day
Never
Quantitative
Every day
Less than every day
Never

Average
271 (4.8)
245 (4.5)
259 (3.0)
261 (4.0)
239 (3.4)
248 (2.8)
264 (4.0)
238 (5.4)
251 (3.3)

NOTE: Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1
percent in 2003) are excluded from this table.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

135

Literacy Behind Bars

Table D5-5. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 5-5. Percentage of the adult prison population who read
as part of current prison work assignment, by prose literacy level: 2003
Literacy scale and literacy level
Prose
Below Basic
Basic
Intermediate
Proficient
Document
Below Basic
Basic
Intermediate
Proficient
Quantitative
Below Basic
Basic
Intermediate
Proficient

Never

Less than every day

Every day

56 (5.5)
51 (3.2)
51 (3.1)
44 (10.8)

13
17
13
10

(3.8)
(2.5)
(2.2)
(8.3)

31 (5.0)
32 (2.9)
36 (2.9)
46 (11.0)

61 (7.1)
52 (3.8)
48 (3.4 )
52 (20.4)

13 (5.5)
16 (3.2)
13 (2.7)
7 (13.5)

26 (5.9)
31 (3.4)
39 (3.2)
41 (19.6)

54 (3.7)
51 (3.3)
49 (4.6)
43 (12.8)

14
17
12
3

32 (3.1)
32 (2.7)
40 (4.1)
54 (12.8)

(3.5)
(3.0)
(4.4)
(7.5)

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this table. Document and quantitative literacy results are also included in this table for reference.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Table D5-6. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 5-6. Percentage of the adult prison population who wrote
as part of current prison work assignment, by prose and document literacy level: 2003
Literacy scale and literacy level
Prose
Below Basic
Basic
Intermediate
Proficient
Document
Below Basic
Basic
Intermediate
Proficient

Never

Less than every day

Every day

58 (5.7)
54 (3.4)
57 (3.3)
57 (11.2)

25
25
15
4

(5.4)
(3.1)
(2.5)
(4.9)

17 (4.0)
21 (2.8)
29 (3.1)
40 (11.1)

64 (8.2)
54 (4.4)
54 (4.0)
69 (23.6)

23
25
15
4

(7.7)
(3.9)
(3.3)
(9.3)

13 (5.8)
20 (4.0)
31 (3.7)
28 (23.4)

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this table.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

136

Appendix D: Estimates and Standard Errors for Tables and Figures

Table D5-7. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 5-7. Percentage of the adult prison population who
attempted to use the prison library, by number of days it took to obtain access: 2003
Number of days

Percent

Less than 2 days
2 to 6 days
7 to 10 days
More than 10 days

59 (3.5)
22 (2.4)
10 (1.3)
10 (1.8)

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this table.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Table D5-8. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 5-8. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy
scores of the adult prison population, by frequency of library use: 2003
Literacy scale and frequency
Prose
Daily
Weekly
Monthly
Once or twice a year
Never
Document
Daily
Weekly
Monthly
Once or twice a year
Never
Quantitative
Daily
Weekly
Monthly
Once or twice a year
Never

Average
255 (5.7)
266 (2.8)
256 (5.0)
256 (5.7)
243 (3.6)
261 (4.0)
242 (4.1)
237 (8.1)
234 (7.4)
248 (2.8)
255 (6.7)
258 (2.9)
252 (4.7)
244 (6.5)
231 (4.1)

NOTE: Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1
percent in 2003) are excluded from this table.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

137

Literacy Behind Bars

Table D5-9. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 5-9. Percentage of the adult prison population who used
the library, by prose literacy level: 2003
Literacy scale and literacy level
Prose
Below Basic
Basic
Intermediate
Proficient
Document
Below Basic
Basic
Intermediate
Proficient
Quantitative
Below Basic
Basic
Intermediate
Proficient

Never
38
26
19
19

(4.5)
(2.4)
(2.2)
(7.0)

39
26
20
15

(5.6)
(2.8)
(2.4)
(10.4)

34
20
17
18

(3.0)
(2.2)
(2.8)
(8.0)

Once or twice a year
9
10
10
6

(3.0)
(1.7)
(1.6)
(5.7)

Monthly

Daily

(3.9)
(2.3)
(2.4)
(9.4)

23 (4.0)
33 (2.8)
42 (2.9)
48 (11.7)

11
12
11
10

11 (3.5)
9 (1.7)
9 (1.5)
14 (11.8)

14 (5.7)
20 (3.6)
20 (3.1)
15 (19.1)

24 (4.7)
35 (3.3)
39 (3.0)
37 (18.5)

12 (3.5)
10 (2.0)
12 (1.9)
19 (14.8)

10
9
9
16

18 (2.7)
20 (2.6)
19 (3.7)
18 (12.4)

28 (2.9)
39 (2.9)
42 (4.2)
36 (13.4)

10 (2.2)
12 (2.1)
13 (3.3)
11 (10.2)

(1.4)
(1.2)
(1.6)
(7.2)

19
19
19
18

Weekly

(3.5)
(2.0)
(2.0)
(7.6)

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this table. Document and quantitative literacy results are also included in this table for reference.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Table D5-10. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 5-10. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy
scores of the adult prison population, by computer use for various tasks: 2003
Literacy scale and computer use
Prose
Used
Never used
Document
Used
Never used
Quantitative
Used
Never used

Word processing

CD ROM

Spreadsheet

265 (5.1)
255 (2.0)

271 (5.2)
255 (2.0)

275 (7.7)
256 (1.9)

259 (3.7)
247 (1.7)

260 (4.1)
247 (1.7)

257 (6.8)
248 (1.6)

258 (4.8)
248 (2.0)

269 (5.2)
247 (2.0)

263 (8.1)
248 (2.0)

NOTE: Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1
percent in 2003) are excluded from this table.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

138

Appendix D: Estimates and Standard Errors for Tables and Figures

Table D5-11. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 5-11. Percentage of the adult prison population who
wrote using a word processing program, by prose literacy level: 2003
Literacy level

Percent

Below Basic
Basic
Intermediate
Proficient

8 (2.9)
12 (2.0)
15 (2.1)
12 (9.9)

NOTE: Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1
percent in 2003) are excluded from this table.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Table D5-12. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 5-12. Percentage of the adult prison population who
looked up information on a computer CD-ROM, by document literacy level: 2003
Literacy level

Percent

Below Basic
Basic
Intermediate
Proficient

3 (5.0)
8 (4.8)
11 (3.9)
6 (22.6)

NOTE: Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1
percent in 2003) are excluded from this table.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Table D5-13. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 5-13. Percentage of the adult prison population who used
a computer spreadsheet program, by quantitative literacy level: 2003
Literacy level

Percent

Below Basic
Basic
Intermediate
Proficient

4 (1.1)
6 (1.1)
7 (1.8)
13 (8.2)

NOTE: Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1
percent in 2003) are excluded from this table.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

139

Literacy Behind Bars

Table D5-14. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 5-14. Percentage of the adult prison and household populations who read each of the following printed materials in English: newspapers or magazines,
books, letters and notes, by frequency of reading: 2003
Printed material and population
Newspapers or magazines
Prison
Household
Books
Prison
Household
Letters and notes
Prison
Household

Every day

A few times a week

Once a week

Less than once a week

Never

43 (1.5)
48 (0.7)*

27 (1.5)
25 (0.5)

10 (1.0)
12 (0.4)

10 (0.9)
9 (0.3)

10 (1.1)
6 (0.4)*

50 (1.7)
32 (0.6)*

22 (1.4)
20 (0.4)

8 (0.9)
10 (0.3)*

12 (0.9)
25 (0.5)*

8 (1.0)
13 (0.6)*

33 (1.7)
51 (0.8)*

33 (1.4)
20 (0.5)*

13 (1.1)
10 (0.3)*

14 (1.1)
13 (0.4)

8 (1.0)
7 (0.4)

*Significantly different from prison population.
NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons and households. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent of the prison sample and 3 percent of the household sample in 2003) are excluded from this table.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Table D5-15. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 5-15. Average prose and document literacy scores of the
adult prison population, by frequency of reading each of the following printed materials in
English: newspapers or magazines, books, letters and notes: 2003
Literacy scale and printed material
Prose
Newspapers or magazines
Books
Letters and notes
Document
Newspapers or magazines
Books
Letters and notes

Every day

A few times a week

Once a week

Less than once a week

Never

263 (2.5)
266 (2.0)
263 (2.5)

263 (2.6)
257 (4.5)
261 (2.7)

249 (5.5)
252 (6.2)
260 (5.8)

254 (5.3)
249 (4.7)
249 (4.1)

208 (8.2)
192 (10.5)
201 (8.1)

252 (2.1)
255 (1.9)
251 (2.5)

250 (2.2)
248 (3.4)
253 (2.6)

250 (6.6)
243 (6.7)
253 (4.6)

245 (4.2)
246 (5.2)
246 (4.9)

216 (9.0)
191 (11.0)
189 (10.1)

NOTE: Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1
percent in 2003) are excluded from this table.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

140

Appendix D: Estimates and Standard Errors for Tables and Figures

Table D5-16. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 5-16. Percentage of the adult prison population who read
each of the following printed materials in English: newspapers or magazines, books, letters and
notes, by prose literacy level: 2003
Printed material, literacy scale
and literacy level
Newspapers and magazines
Prose
Below Basic
Basic
Intermediate
Proficient
Document
Below Basic
Basic
Intermediate
Proficient
Books
Prose
Below Basic
Basic
Intermediate
Proficient
Document
Below Basic
Basic
Intermediate
Proficient
Letters and notes
Prose
Below Basic
Basic
Intermediate
Proficient
Document
Below Basic
Basic
Intermediate
Proficient

Every day

A few times a week

Once a week

29 (4.1)
44 (2.7)
48 (2.7)
47 (11.9)

17 (3.5)
29 (2.6)
31 (2.6)
23 (10.7)

13
9
8
15

(2.5)
(1.3)
(1.2)
(5.9)

10
11
9
10

(2.4)
(1.5)
(1.4)
(7.0)

32
7
5
5

(4.0)
(1.2)
(1.0)
(2.9)

33 (4.7)
43 (3.1)
46 (2.7)
42 (16.1)

20 (4.4)
30 (3.0)
28 (2.6)
18 (13.2)

12 (2.8)
8 (1.4)
10 (1.4)
21 (11.5)

9
11
10
3

(3.7)
(2.4)
(1.9)
(6.4)

26
8
6
16

(4.0)
(1.2)
(1.0)
(7.7)

25 (4.1)
52 (2.8)
59 (2.7)
50 (12.8)

22 (3.8)
21 (2.3)
22 (2.3)
28 (11.0)

10
9
7
14

14
13
10
7

(2.9)
(1.6)
(1.5)
(4.8)

30
5
2
2

(4.1)
(1.2)
(0.7)
(2.1)

32 (5.2)
50 (3.7)
57 (3.2)
56 (17.8)

16 (6.0)
25 (4.0)
22 (3.3)
7 (13.1)

11 (2.8)
8 (1.4)
7 (1.2)
21 (12.1)

14 (3.3)
11 (1.8)
11 (1.6)
14 (10.8)

28
6
3
2

(4.6)
(1.2)
(0.8)
(2.6)

20 (3.9)
34 (2.7)
38 (2.7)
29 (11.2)

27 (3.6)
32 (2.3)
34 (2.3)
45 (10.9)

10
13
13
15

17
15
12
10

(2.9)
(1.7)
(1.5)
(5.4)

26
6
3
1

(3.7)
(1.2)
(0.7)
(0.8)

24 (5.4)
36 (3.7)
35 (3.1)
27 (19.9)

23 (5.1)
33 (3.4)
35 (2.9)
35 (20.7)

9 (4.5)
13 (3.2)
14 (2.7)
8 (15.0)

18 (3.5)
13 (1.9)
13 (1.7)
26 (15.1)

27
6
3
4

(4.3)
(1.1)
(0.7)
(3.5)

(2.3)
(1.3)
(1.2)
(6.3)

(3.1)
(2.0)
(2.0)
(9.7)

Less than once a week

Never

NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this table. Document literacy results are also included in this table for reference.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

141

Literacy Behind Bars

Table D6-1. Estimates and standard errors for Table 6-1. Percentage of the adult prison population in selected
groups: 1992 and 2003
Characteristic
Type of offense
Violent
Property
Drug
Public order
Expected length of incarceration
0–60 months
61–120 months
121+ months
Expected date of release
2 years or less
More than 2 years
Previous criminal history
None
Probation only
Incarceration only
Probation and incarceration

1992

2003

44 (2.0)
18 (1.3)
25 (1.6)
13 (1.2)

47 (2.1)
15 (1.1)*
23 (1.9)
15 (1.4)

64 (2.2)
20 (1.6)
16 (1.3)

52 (2.4)*
21 (1.3)
28 (2.3)*

66 (2.3)
34 (2.3)

62 (2.3)
38 (2.3)

21 (1.4)
14 (1.3)
16 (1.4)
48 (1.8)

16 (1.4)*
11 (1.1)
10 (0.9)*
64 (1.7)*

*Significantly different from 1992.
NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (3 percent in 1992 and 1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this table. Results are based on inmates self report, not prison records.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey and 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

142

Appendix D: Estimates and Standard Errors for Tables and Figures

Table D6-2. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 6-1. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy
scores of the adult prison population, by type of offense: 1992 and 2003
Prose
Type of offense
Violent
Property
Drug
Public order

Document

1992

2003

247 (2.8)
257 (4.3)
243 (4.4)
245 (5.2)

256 (2.7)*
263 (4.2)
255 (4.2)*
258 (3.6)

Quantitative

1992

2003

1992

241 (3.8)
251 (3.5)
240 (4.8)
240 (5.2)

247 (2.2)
258 (3.6)
247 (3.5)
248 (4.1)

231 (4.4)
243 (5.3)
233 (6.8)
233 (7.0)

2003
249 (2.6)*
253 (4.7)
247 (4.0)
251 (4.4)*

*Significantly different from 1992.
NOTE: Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (3
percent in 1992 and 1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this table.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey and 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Table D6-3. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 6-2. Percentage of the adult prison population in each
prose, document, and quantitative literacy level, by type of offense: 1992 and 2003
Violent
Literacy scale and literacy level
Prose
Below basic
Basic
Intermediate
Proficient
Document
Below basic
Basic
Intermediate
Proficient
Quantitative
Below basic
Basic
Intermediate
Proficient

1992

Property
2003

Drug

1992

2003

1992

2003

Public order
1992
2003

23 (2.0)
40 (1.9)
34 (2.1)
3 (0.9)

17 (2.2)*
40 (2.5)
41 (2.6)*
3 (1.0)

16 (3.5)
40 (4.0)
41 (4.5)
3 (1.7)

11 (3.0)
41 (5.2)
46 (5.5)
3 (2.1)

26 (3.3)
39 (2.6)
33 (3.0)
3 (1.1)

19 (2.7)
38 (2.9)
39 (3.0)
5 (1.5)

23 (3.8)
41 (3.8)
34 (4.3)
2 (1.3)

16 (3.2)
39 (3.7)
42 (3.8)
3 (1.4)

24 (2.7)
33 (2.3)
40 (3.0)
3 (1.1)

14 (2.6)*
38 (3.1)
47 (3.6)
1 (0.8)

17 (2.6)
31 (2.6)
49 (3.5)
3 (1.2)

9 (3.3)
31 (5.4)
58 (5.9)
2 (2.2)

24 (3.2)
33 (2.3)
39 (3.3)
4 (1.3)

16 (3.5)
36 (3.8)
47 (4.6)
2 (1.3)

22 (4.5)
35 (4.6)
43 (5.4)
1 (1.1)

18 (3.5)
33 (3.6)
46 (4.3)
3 (1.6)

52 (2.6)
31 (1.7)
15 (1.5)
3 (0.8)

39 (2.5)*
40 (2.1)*
19 (1.7)
2 (0.7)

44 (4.8)
37 (3.8)
17 (3.3)
2 (1.3)

35 (4.9)
43 (4.4)
21 (3.6)
2 (1.4)

49 (3.8)
31 (2.4)
17 (2.3)
3 (1.3)

41 (3.8)
38 (3.1)
19 (2.7)
2 (0.9)

51 (4.8)
31 (3.3)
15 (2.8)
3 (1.3)

39 (3.9)
37 (3.4)
21 (2.8)
3 (1.4)

*Significantly different from 1992.
NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (3 percent in 1992 and 1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this table.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey and 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

143

Literacy Behind Bars

Table D6-4. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 6-3. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy
scores of the adult prison population, by expected length of incarceration: 1992 and 2003
Prose
Expected length of incarceration
0–60 months
61–120 months
121+ months

Document

1992
250 (2.6)
252 (5.1)
242 (4.1)

2003
258 (2.4)*
254 (3.9)
258 (2.7)*

1992
248 (2.7)
239 (5.0)
233 (6.9)

Quantitative
2003

248 (2.4)
253 (3.1)*
248 (2.4)*

1992
235 (3.7)
240 (7.1)
223 (6.5)

2003
249 (2.4)*
252 (3.9)
247 (2.9)*

*Significantly different from 1992.
NOTE: Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (3
percent in 1992 and 1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this table.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey and 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Table D6-5. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 6-4. Percentage of the adult prison population in each
prose, document, and quantitative literacy level, by expected length of incarceration: 1992 and
2003
0–60 months
Literacy scale and literacy level
Prose
Below basic
Basic
Intermediate
Proficient
Document
Below basic
Basic
Intermediate
Proficient
Quantitative
Below basic
Basic
Intermediate
Proficient

1992

2003

61–120 months
1992
2003

121+ months
1992

2003

21 (1.9)
39 (1.9)
37 (2.2)
3 (0.8)

15 (2.0)*
40 (2.2)
42 (2.3)
3 (1.0)

22 (3.3)
37 (3.2)
37 (3.6)
5 (1.6)

17 (3.2)
41 (3.5)
39 (3.7)
3 (1.5)

24 (4.2)
45 (4.0)
30 (4.1)
1 (1.1)

16 (2.1)
39 (2.7)
43 (2.6)*
3 (1.0)

18 (1.8)
32 (1.8)
47 (2.3)
3 (0.9)

16 (2.3)
35 (2.5)
47 (2.9)
2 (0.9)

27 (3.5)
32 (2.7)
37 (3.7)
4 (1.4)

14 (2.8)*
34 (3.5)
50 (4.1)*
3 (1.5)

29 (6.3)
37 (5.1)
33 (6.7)
2 (2.0)

13 (3.2)*
38 (4.2)
48 (4.8)
1 (1.0)

49 (2.4)
33 (1.7)
16 (1.4)
3 (0.8)

40 (1.9)*
37 (1.7)
21 (1.4)*
3 (0.6)

46 (4.3)
31 (2.6)
19 (2.8)
3 (1.3)

37 (5.0)
42 (4.3)*
19 (3.6)
2 (1.3)

58 (5.2)
31 (3.9)
10 (2.6)
1 (0.9)

39 (3.1)*
42 (2.6)*
17 (2.2)*
2 (0.7)

*Significantly different from 1992.
NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (3 percent in 1992 and 1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this table.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey and 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

144

Appendix D: Estimates and Standard Errors for Tables and Figures

Table D6-6. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 6-5. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy
scores of the adult prison population, by expected date of release: 1992 and 2003
Prose
Expected date of release
2 years or less
More than 2 years

1992
251 (2.7)
247 (3.0)

Document
2003
257 (2.3)
257 (2.9)*

Quantitative

1992

2003

1992

246 (2.9)
240 (4.2)

249 (2.1)
248 (2.3)

235 (3.8)
233 (4.5)

2003
249 (2.3)*
249 (2.7)*

*Significantly different from 1992.
NOTE: Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (3
percent in 1992 and 1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this table.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey and 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Table D6-7. Estimates and standard errors for Figure 6-6. Percentage of the adult prison population in each
prose, document, and quantitative literacy level, by expected date of release: 1992 and 2003
2 years or less
Literacy scale and literacy level
Prose
Below basic
Basic
Intermediate
Proficient
Document
Below basic
Basic
Intermediate
Proficient
Quantitative
Below basic
Basic
Intermediate
Proficient

1992

More than 2 years
2003

1992

2003

22 (1.9)
38 (1.8)
37 (2.1)
4 (0.9)

15 (2.0)*
41 (2.3)
41 (2.3)
3 (0.9)

22 (2.7)
42 (2.6)
34 (2.7)
2 (0.8)

17 (2.2)
37 (2.2)
42 (2.4)*
4 (1.0)

20 (1.9)
32 (1.8)
44 (2.4)
3 (1.0)

15 (2.0)
35 (2.3)
48 (2.6)
2 (0.9)

25 (2.9)
33 (2.4)
39 (3.3)
3 (1.2)

14 (2.8)*
36 (3.3)
49 (4.0)
1 (0.8)

49 (2.5)
32 (1.7)
16 (1.5)
3 (0.8)

40 (2.0)*
38 (1.8)*
20 (1.4)*
2 (0.6)

51 (3.0)
31 (2.0)
15 (1.8)
2 (0.9)

38 (3.0)*
41 (2.3)*
19 (2.0)
2 (0.8)

*Significantly different from 1992.
NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (3 percent in 1992 and 1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this table.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey and 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

145

Literacy Behind Bars

Table D6-8.

Estimates and standard errors for Figure 6-7. Average prose, document, and quantitative literacy
scores of the adult prison population, by previous criminal history: 1992 and 2003
Prose

Previous criminal history
None
Probation only
Incarceration only
Probation and incarceration

Document

1992
252 (5.8)
249 (4.7)
244 (4.2)
248 (2.3)

2003

1992

248 (6.6)
259 (5.7)
252 (6.8)
258 (2.2)*

249 (5.3)
242 (5.0)
238 (4.3)
243 (3.2)

Quantitative
2003

248 (5.9)
256 (4.4)*
237 (3.7)
249 (2.0)

1992

2003

240 (6.1)
228 (7.4)
241 (5.3)
231 (4.3)

250 (5.5)
257 (5.9)*
249 (5.1)
247 (2.5)*

*Significantly different from 1992.
NOTE: Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (3
percent in 1992 and 1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this table.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey and 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

Table D6-9.

Estimates and standard errors for Figure 6-8. Percentage of the adult prison population in each
prose, document, and quantitative literacy level, by previous criminal history: 1992 and 2003
None

Literacy scale and literacy level
Prose
Below basic
Basic
Intermediate
Proficient
Document
Below basic
Basic
Intermediate
Proficient
Quantitative
Below basic
Basic
Intermediate
Proficient

Probation only
1992
2003

Incarceration only
1992
2003

Probation
and incarceration
1992
2003

1992

2003

22 (3.6)
37 (3.0)
37 (3.7)
5 (1.8)

29 (3.6)
31 (2.3)
33 (3.0)
8 (1.7)

23 (3.1)
38 (3.2)
34 (3.2)
4 (1.6)

14 (4.7)
40 (5.4)
43 (5.7)
3 (2.4)

27 (2.9)
37 (2.8)
33 (2.8)
4 (1.1)

21 (3.5)
38 (4.1)
37 (4.4)
5 (2.2)

21 (2.1)
42 (2.1)
35 (2.3)
2 (0.7)

13 (1.9)*
42 (2.8)
43 (2.9)*
2 (0.9)

21 (3.4)
30 (2.7)
45 (3.9)
5 (1.7)

21 (3.5)
30 (2.6)
43 (3.4)
6 (1.8)

23 (3.8)
33 (3.1)
40 (4.3)
3 (1.4)

7 (8.0)
35 (12.6)
57 (13.9)
1 (2.5)

25 (3.7)
34 (3.1)
40 (3.7)
2 (1.1)

20 (6.1)
42 (6.7)
37 (7.3)
1 (1.1)

22 (2.1)
33 (1.9)
42 (2.4)
3 (1.0)

14 (2.1)*
36 (2.6)
49 (3.0)
2 (0.8)

47 (3.4)
30 (2.1)
19 (2.2)
5 (1.4)

38 (4.0)
37 (2.9)*
21 (2.6)
4 (1.4)

54 (4.5)
28 (2.8)
15 (2.6)
3 (1.2)

32 (6.7)*
42 (5.9)*
23 (4.8)
2 (1.7)

44 (4.1)
38 (3.2)
16 (2.6)
2 (1.1)

38 (4.4)
39 (4.0)
20 (3.3)
2 (1.4)

52 (2.9)
32 (2.0)
14 (1.7)
2 (0.7)

41 (2.5)*
39 (2.0)*
18 (1.7)
2 (0.7)

*Significantly different from 1992.
NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Standard errors are in parentheses. Adults are defined as people 16 years of age and older living in prisons. Adults who could not be interviewed due to language spoken or cognitive or mental disabilities (3 percent in 1992 and 1 percent in 2003) are excluded from this table.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey and 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy.

146