Content uploaded by Mohamed Msoroka
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Mohamed Msoroka on Sep 18, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
34
Barriers to Prison Education: A Tanzanian Perspective
Mohamed Salum Msoroka1 Brian Findsen2 & Jo Barnes3
Email: mohamed.msoroka@out.ac.tz1;
The Open University of Tanzania1 University of Waikato2 & University of Waikato3
ABSTRACT
This article discusses the barriers to prison education from a Tanzanian perspective.
The paper addresses one major research question, “What are the barriers to prison
education in the Tanzanian context?”. This qualitative study employed multiple-case
study design, which involved 51 participants, including 28 inmates, six (6) inmate-
teachers, 14 prison officers from five prisons, two (2) representatives from the Institute
of Adult Education and a District Adult Education Officer. The data were mainly
collected through individual and focus group interviews. Focus Group Interviews were
employed to collect information from some inmates who were available in groups. Data
from the rest of the participants, including some inmates, were collected through
Individual Interviews. Thematic analysis was used to process the data. The study found
two main categories of barriers – the prison and imprisonment situation and
dispositional – that inhibited participation in prison education. The findings suggest
that most prisoners were affected by the barriers associated with “prison and
imprisonment situation”; a few were affected by dispositional barriers. It is suggested
here that Tanzania should do more to improve prisoners’ access to education in tune
with global tendencies to widen participation amid marginalised populations..
Key Words: Barriers to prison education, prison education, correctional education,
participation in prison education, lifelong learning, adult education
INTRODUCTION
Scholars have different views regarding the causes of crimes and the role of prison
education in helping to alleviate recidivism (Callan & Gardner, 2007; Pollock, 2014).
However, many of them agree that the socio-economic factors make a significant
contribution to criminal behavior. They argue that most criminal behaviours and the
likelihood of reoffending are the result of socio-economic structures – low education,
Jipe Vol. 12(2) December, 2020
35
poor work skills, and poverty (Thornberry & Farnworth, 1982; Weatherburn, 2001;
Webster & Kingston, 2014). These circumstances give people no hope for a better life;
they feel that they have nothing to lose. Several studies have shown the link between
imprisonment and these structural level factors. In the USA, for instance, Lochner and
Moretti (2004) reported the link between low education, criminality, and incarceration.
In Australia, out of 6,386 prisoners in the state of Victoria, only 246 attained secondary
school education prior to their imprisonment (Victorian Ombudsman, 2015). Similarly,
in the UK, about 50% of prisoners had low reading skills, 66% had low numeracy skills,
and about 81% had low writing skills (Braggins & Talbot, 2003). Relatively similar
findings were also reported in New Zealand (Edwards & Cunningham, 2016) and
Finland (Koski, 2009). The Tanzanian situation is no different as it is reported that
about 75% of prisoners in Dodoma region have minimal literacy skills (Sauwa, 2010;
The United Republic of Tanzania, 2014).
Studies suggest that prison education can improve education and work skills among
prisoners, and reduce reoffending rates (Bozick, Steele, Davis, & Turner, 2018; Callan
& Gardner, 2007; Davis et al., 2014). Despite this sobering suggestion, and the fact that
prison education is a subset of adult education, this field (prison education) is not
extensively researched in Tanzania. Very few studies (Mboje, 2013; Msamada, 2013)
have examined this topic, and none of them has researched the barriers to prison
education. Therefore, this current study aims to address this research gap. One question
this research project addressed is: What are the barriers to prison education in the
Tanzanian context? This article discusses the barriers to prison education from
participants’ perspectives. It is hoped that this article will contribute to the wider
discussion on the barriers to prison education and open up a new debate on the same
issue in the Tanzanian context.
Barriers to Adult Education
The focus of this article is on barriers to prison education. Because prison education is a
subset of adult education, this article will first (briefly) discuss the general barriers to
participation in adult education before embarking on barriers to prison education. Adult
education scholars have grouped barriers to adult education in different ways. Johnstone
(1963) is among the pioneers who studied barriers to adult education. He developed two
Jipe Vol. 12(2) December, 2020
36
clusters of barriers: external/situational barriers – that emerge from outside of the
learner (e.g. family, social, and work responsibilities) – and internal/dispositional
barriers – that grow from within the learners themselves (beliefs, values, attitudes, and
perceptions about oneself and/or education e.g. a feeling of being too old to learn).
Cross (1979) expanded on Johnston’s work and proposed a third cluster, institutional
barriers. The institutional barriers are caused (often inadvertently) by an organisation
that offers learning opportunities. Examples are irrelevant content (curriculum),
inappropriate marketing and poor timetabling. Darkenwald and Merriam (1982)
established a fourth cluster, informational barriers (the lack of awareness on the part of
learners about the available educational opportunities). Consequently, at the moment,
these four typologies – situational, psychological/dispositional, institutional, and
informational – have become the most cited typologies of barriers to adult learning
(Findsen & Formosa, 2011; Findsen & McCullough, 2007; Merriam, Caffarella, &
Baumgartner, 2007). Prison education is undertaken in a different context, namely
prisons, which are regarded as “total institutions”
1
. It is noted here that in some cases,
prisoners may face relatively similar barriers to those experienced by adult population
outside of prisons and some different ones related to the specific prison context. This
article extends the discussions regarding the barriers affecting adult education to
prisoners – a special group of adult learners.
Barriers to Prison Education
Scholars have suggested several barriers to prison education. For some developed
countries, the quoted reasons for poor inmates’ participation in prison education include
the lack of proper information for programme opportunities, lack of appropriate
programmes, and reduced funds for prison education (Crayton & Neusteter, 2008;
Davis, Bozick, Steele, Saunders, & Miles, 2013; Erisman & Contardo, 2005). Also,
some prisoners were not permitted to enrol because of disciplinary problems, and others
because of the types of their sentences, such as life sentenced prisoners (Braggins &
Talbot, 2003; Klein, Tolbert, Bugarin, Cataldi, & Tauschek, 2004). Some prison staff in
1
Highly restricted organisations, isolated from the rest of the world, and operate with structured
daily routines; see Goffman, E. (1962). Asylums: Essays on the social situation of mental patients and
other inmates. Chicago: Aldine. Amundsen, D., Msoroka, M., & Findsen, B. (2017). “It’s a case of
access”: The problematics of accessing research participants. Waikato Journal of Education, 22(4), 5-17.
10.15663/wje.v22i4.425
Jipe Vol. 12(2) December, 2020
37
the USA have shown resentment toward prisoners being offered a chance at college
education (Erisman & Contardo, 2005). This resentment was a problem because
sometimes prison staff obstructed the learning process by locking up some prisoners
when they needed to attend class. Sometimes, they confiscated inmates’ textbooks, or
interrupted classes (Erisman & Contardo, 2005; Thomas, 1995). In Africa, the situation
is worse. Issues related to shortages of funds, poor infrastructure, and a lack of
resources have severely affected adequate provision of prison education (Asiimwe &
Kinengyere, 2011; Mokwena, 2008; Msoroka, 2018; Sarkin, 2008; Setoi, 2012). The
following sections will discuss these barriers in relation to the Tanzanian context of
prison education.
The Context of Tanzanian Prisons
Tanzania has a total of 33,517 prisoners (The United Republic of Tanzania, 2017c)
incarcerated in 126 public prisons. These 126 prisons are grouped into
Central/Maximum Security (12), District/Medium Security (68), and
Agricultural/Open/Low Security prisons (46) (Inmate Rehabilitation and Welfare
Services Tanzania, 2014; The United Republic of Tanzania, 2017b). It should be noted
that these 126 (Tanzanian) prisons have the capacity of 29,552 prisoners (Mikongoti,
Mlowe, & Wazambi, 2016; The United Republic of Tanzania, 2017c). Hence, the
current number of incarcerated prisoners (33,517) indicates overcrowded prisons in
Tanzania. This article holds that Tanzanian prisoners are not different from other
prisoners around the world; most of them are illiterate and have little work skills (The
United Republic of Tanzania, 2014). Despite the observation that prison education is a
necessary programme for prisoners’ rehabilitation, education is currently not an
obligatory component for Tanzanian prisoners. The available policy document (Prison
Education Guide) does not legally bind prisons to offer prison education (The United
Republic of Tanzania, 2011). Consequently, only a few prisons offer educational
options to some prisoners (Msamada, 2013; Msoroka, 2018). This suggests that, in
Tanzania, participation in prison education is not easy; hence the current study explored
this topic from the Tanzanian perspectives.
Jipe Vol. 12(2) December, 2020
38
Rehabilitation Theory
This section discusses the theoretical underpinning of this study. Considering the link
between prison education and the reduction of recidivism, this research considered
rehabilitation theory relevant to this study. Studies suggest that a reduction of
recidivism rates in prisons depends on the availability of rehabilitation programmes
within prison systems (The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 2012).
Campbell (2005) maintains that rehabilitation is “the process of helping a person to
readapt to society or to restore someone to a former position or rank” (p. 831). It is
assumed here that for being one of the rehabilitation programmes in prisons, prison
education can reduce recidivism rates among prisoners (Klein et al., 2004; The United
Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 2012). Literature holds that in the prison context,
“educational, vocational, and psychologically based programmes, as well as specialised
services for specific problems, have typically been put forward as means to reform
prisoners during their sentence (Campbell, 2005, p. 831). As has been observed,
educational programmes in prisons such as vocational training, literacy education, and
college education have been used to prepare offenders to reintegrate into the society
(Campbell, 2005; Cullen & Gendreau, 2000). These programmes provide skills which
can help prisoners to handle their after-release lives (Callan & Gardner, 2007; Davis et
al., 2014) and consequently reduce reoffending behaviour among the prisoners
(Workman, n.d.). For this reason, it is argued here that the provision of prison education
is a significant enterprise. Hence, limiting the provision of educational programmes
within prisons (as will be discussed in this article) restricts the government’s efforts
towards reshaping prisoners’ behaviours.
Methodology
This research aimed at developing an in-depth understanding of the barriers to prison
education in Tanzania. Following Yin’s (2009) suggestion that researchers have to be
cautious in case selection; this study selected five prisons which have different
characteristics. Two of them were the Maximum Security prisons with some kind of
educational programmes (One male’s and the other female’s). The other two were Low
Security (males’) prisons (one with some kind of educational programmes while the
other had no any educational programme); the fifth one was a youth prison. Arguably, it
was more their differences in characteristics which influenced their inclusion in the
Jipe Vol. 12(2) December, 2020
39
rproject than their similarities (Stake, 2000). Participation in this study was voluntary.
The participants included inmates (28), prison staff (14), inmate-teachers (6),
representatives from the Institute of Adult Education (2), and a District Adult Education
Officer. The purpose of selecting prisons and participants with different characteristics
was to gain information related to barriers to prison education from different
perspectives (Creswell, 2007; Yin, 2009). The ethics clearance for this project was
granted from the Faculty of Education Ethics Committee, the University of Waikato
(New Zealand), the Regional Commissioner Officers (Tanzania) where the relevant
prisons were located, and at prison level.
The interpretivist paradigm was central to this study as we believe that the construction
of meaning is subjective and multiple; people generate their version of reality while
interacting with their environments (Collins, 2010; Mackenzie & Knipe, 2006; Snape &
Spencer, 2003). The interpretivist paradigm involves researchers interpreting meaning
from their participants’ point of view. This view was key in interpreting the perceived
barriers to prison education. Hence, the analysis of data has been based on the
participants’ perspectives. This study employed a qualitative approach (Creswell, 2007).
Five prisons constituted the multiple cases for this project. Purposive sampling was
mainly used to select the participants, except for ex-offenders who were located through
a snowball approach (Patton, 1990; Tongco, 2007). With purposive sampling, teachers,
prisoners, prison staff and other participants from outside of prisons (e.g. adult
education officers), who were thought to have relevant information to this study, were
selected (Cohen, Manion, & Morrison, 2007; Patton, 1990). While in the field,
flexibility was key to effective data collection. For instance at times convenience
sampling was used to select participants. This method allowed the selection of
participants who were “easily accessible and willing to participate in a study” (Teddlie
& Yu, 2007, p. 78). For tringulation purposes, both individual interviews and focus
group interviews were used to gather information. Since the participants of this study
were Tanzanians who were fluent in Kiswahili language, Kiswahili was used during the
interviews to allow greater freedom of expression. Most data were collected in prisons
where it was not possible to record the interviews. Hence, extensive notes were
generated. During interviews, everything seemed to be important was noted;
participants were stopped whenever clarification from interviwees was needed. A
Jipe Vol. 12(2) December, 2020
40
reflective journal (which was used to keep records of everyday’s activities) was used to
supplement the field notes. Voice recording was used to obtain participants’ data
outside of the prisons with their consent. Transcriptions were later generated from field
notes and voice recording. When developing transcripts from field notes, the notes
generated from different interview sessions were read separately. Whenever the gap was
observed, researchers used a reflective journal to seek for more information. Then the
transcripts were translated into understandable English, with careful attention given to
making sure that the original meaning conveyed by the participants was kept. Themes
and subthemes developed from this study were inductively generated through thematic
analysis (McMillan & Schumacher, 1993).
Stories from transcripts were read several times, and information related to barriers to
prison education was highlighted and noted on the paper margin. The sentences and
phrases, which were thought relevant to this study (relevant texts), were intensively
examined (Silverstein, 2003). Then, the emerging ideas were written on a separate sheet
to form a list of topics (McMillan & Schumacher, 1993). With thorough examination
(McMillan & Schumacher, 1993; Merriam, 1998), topics with similar perspectives were
identified and marked with similar colours. Then, the topics that seemed to be similar
were grouped together to form general themes which were labelled by names that
captured the groups best (Auerbach & Silverstein, 2003; McMillan & Schumacher,
1993). Eventually, the study was left with two major themes (categories) – prison and
imprisonment situation, and dispositional barriers. Under the first theme, the following
eight sub-themes were generated: budget constraints, inadequate infrastructures,
insufficient teaching and learning resources, irrelevant curricula, non-credentialed
courses, lack of information among prison officers, discriminatory conditions set by
prisons, and poor policy interpretation. The second theme had two sub-themes –
perceived lack of interest, and truancy and dropout.
Findings and Discussion
Perceived barriers to Prison Education
This study found that the majority of prisoners did not have access to prison education.
Out of 1298 (total) prisoners this study found in all five selected prisons, only 419
(32%) were attending prison education. This finding is similar to Wlodkowski’s (2008)
Jipe Vol. 12(2) December, 2020
41
observation that underrepresented groups of adults such as prisoners have “underserved
students, lacking the accessibility and support, financial as well as academic” (p. 25) to
succeed in education. In the present study, several barriers to prison education were
observed. Most of the issues raised would fit into some typologies – situational,
dispositional, and institutional – discussed previously. However, because of the context
of this project (prison), it was extremely difficult to draw a line of demarcation between
the “situational barriers” and “institutional barriers”. It was considered that most factors
that could be labelled “institutional” were influenced by the prison “situation”. For
instance, a lack of relevant curriculum in most selected prisons was influenced by
prisons being “total institutions”. Prisons had poor collaboration with other learning
institutions (outside of prison system) which could help to provide relevant
programmes. For this reason, this study clusters the factors that could be under
“institutional” and those which could be under “situational” and calls this cluster “the
prison and imprisonment situation”. Also, all issues related to “personal attitudes” were
grouped within the “dispositional barriers”. In this study, the majority of the barriers
that participants discussed were under the prison and imprisonment situation; fewer
were recorded under the dispositional barriers. However, it is noted here that
dispositional barriers, especially for the marginalised adults, are usually the most
powerful, but heavily disguised (Darkenwald & Merriam, 1982). Hence, it is not
surprising that dispositional barriers were not openly admitted to in this project. This
could be associated with a methodological limitation.
The Prison and Imprisonment Situation
The following is a discussion reflecting the barriers that were labelled under “prison and
imprisonment situation”.
Budget constraints (shortage of funds)
The findings of this study suggest that prisons which offered education did so for free
and hence prisoners were not required to pay for their learning. However, it was clear
that prisons did not have budgets for prison education. The majority of participants
complained about the lack of funds to support educational programmes. A prison staff
member commented:
Jipe Vol. 12(2) December, 2020
42
Our prison doesn’t have a budget for prison education purpose. We can’t
afford to buy chalk, notebooks, pens, and textbooks. Sometimes, we are
completely out of chalk to run our classes. (Yahaya; Prison staff; Interview)
The main problem is how to get those resources. Our prison doesn’t have a
budget to buy notebooks, pens, chalk and books. (Shida; Prison staff;
Interview)
Our main challenge is financial constraints. We need funds to buy books
and other teaching and learning materials, including tools for workshops.
The problem is that the government usually sets funds for prisoners’ meals
and medication; it doesn’t focus on prisoners’ education. I think they forget
that the prisoners need education for their rehabilitation, which is the main
purpose of this prison. (Kapange; Prison staff; Interview)
It is suggested here that the lack of budget for prison education programmes seems to
reflect the Ministerial general budget – The Ministry of Home Affairs (The United
Republic of Tanzania, 2017a). Although the Minister claimed to pay attention to
prisoners’ rehabilitation, no funds were allocated for prison education in the 2017/2018
budget. A lack of funds for prison education, as seen in this study, strongly suggests that
the Tanzanian Government does not consider prison education a priority in their
budgets. Hence, the situation may not support rehabilitation process among the
prisoners.
Inadequate Infrastructures
Studies suggest that the learning environment has a significant influence on adults’
involvement in education (Wlodkowski & Ginsberg, 1995). Knowles (1980) holds that
adults may learn best in an environment that gives them a feeling of being valued.
According to Knowles, a learning environment comprises physical and psychological
factors. The physical factors are associated with the classroom set up. They include
tables and chairs that bring physical comfort during the teaching and learning processes.
From a psychological perspective, a positive environment is created by “mutual trust
and respect, mutual helpfulness, freedom of expression, and acceptance of differences”
(Knowles, Holton, & Swanson, 2005, p. 93). Considering that prison education is a
subset of adult education, it could be argued that the learning environment in prison has
significant impact in (de)motivating prisoners to participate in education. This can
explain why the Prison Education Guide, a local policy document, recommends prisons
set aside comfortable learning spaces for prisoners (The United Republic of Tanzania,
Jipe Vol. 12(2) December, 2020
43
2011). However, this study found that teaching and learning environments in prisons
were among the main challenges that negatively affected prison education. Out of five
selected prisons (all names in this article are pseudonyms), only one (Kipera) had
classrooms furnished with desks. One prison (Uluguru) did not have any learning
spaces. The other three prisons (Kikuyu, Chinangali, and Lubungo) placed chalkboards
on walls outside the prison cells and considered them as the learning spaces. In this
situation, learners did not have chairs – some sat on plastic buckets and others on the
ground. As the learning spaces were not roofed, teaching and learning could not take
place when it rained or when it was too sunny/hot. This finding contradicts
recommendations of the Prison Education Guide as seen in the above paragraph (The
United Republic of Tanzania, 2011). It also contradicts the propositions of adult
education scholars who advocate for a learning environment that provides physical
comfort for adult learners (Knowles, 1980).
Insufficient Teaching and Learning Resources
This study found that the selected prisons faced a severe shortage of resources. Many
prisoners complained of the lack of notebooks, pens, and textbooks. Many prisoners
(learners) were taking notes on pieces of papers; they were not happy with that
circumstance. Teachers complained about their learners having no notebooks and pens.
They also complained about having no chalk to carry out teaching instruction. This
shortage of resources forced the closure of two classes in one prison (Chinangali). One
prison officer said:
As you can see, we don’t have proper learning areas, and our learners don’t
have chairs and tables. Some sit on (plastic) buckets and others in the dust.
We don’t have sufficient exercise books, pens and chalks. As you have
observed, some of our classes are closed due to a shortage of resources.
(Yahaya; Prison staff; Interview)
One inmate who left the study programme associated his dropout with shortage of
resources. He said:
Learning was very challenging for me because I didn’t have resources. I
had no notebooks, no pens. This discouraged me, so I opted out. (Kassim;
inmate; Interview)
I once joined a class and attended the first, second and third levels. I now
have an ability to read and write. However, my class is currently closed due
Jipe Vol. 12(2) December, 2020
44
to deficit of resources such as notebooks, pens and chalks. That’s what
made me drop from studies. (Matengo; inmate; Interview)
I have never joined a class since I got into this prison. I know that I have no
one to give me writing materials (notebooks and pens); how can I be able to
study without writing materials? That discourages me to join any class
completely. (Marry; inmate; Interview)
Kassim’s, Matengo’s, and Marry’s comments may be a reflection of several other
prisoners who opted out from prison education programmes for resource reasons. It is
argued that the shortage of teaching and learning resources have negatively impacted
prison education programmes within the Tanzanian context. However, it is noted here
that a shortage of resources is not only facing Tanzanian prisons but also other African
countries as well. On this issue, Sarkin (2008) reported that:
Resource scarcity is one of the most significant challenges facing African
prisons today. On a continent with so many social needs, protection of
prisoners is far from the top of many priority lists. (p. 32)
Countries such as Uganda and Kenya have reported insufficient resources for prison
education (Asiimwe & Kinengyere, 2011; Dhlamini & Heeralal, 2014; Kyalo, Muiwa,
Matuta, & Rutere, 2014). It should be noted that in Africa, a deficit of resources and
poor learning environments affect other adult education activities outside of prisons
(Dhlamini & Heeralal, 2014). Therefore, it is not surprising for this study to find the
selected prisons having a shortage of resources for educational activities.
Irrelevant Curricula
The literature suggests that a consideration of learners’ needs is a key to the success of
adult education programme (Gboku & Lekoko, 2007; Knowles et al., 2005). However,
it seems that development of educational programmes in Tanzanian prisons took a
different path; prisoners’ needs and interests were not taken into consideration. This
study suggests that the situation negatively affected prisoners’ participation. One
prisoner said:
I’m not happy with classes that I attend here. I would like to have an
opportunity to study a complete secondary education curriculum which I
have never done before, but it isn’t fully available here. (Edward; Inmate;
FGI)
Jipe Vol. 12(2) December, 2020
45
Because the programmes failed to accommodate prisoners’ needs and interests, this
study found that some inmates were reluctant to join programmes. Some of them
commented:
Here they don’t teach a serious secondary education curriculum. Therefore,
I don’t see an appropriate education for me. Regarding vocational training,
I would like to study cookery, but unfortunately, we don’t have such training
in this prison. (Siwema; Inmate; FGI)
I have never attended any education programme at this prison. One of the
reasons is that there is no programme of my interest here. I would like to
learn electrical studies, which isn’t available in this prison. (Matonya;
Inmate; Interview)
This suggests that Tanzanian prisons do not have relevant educational programmes to
cater prisoners’ needs. For this reason, it is suggested that the Tanzania Prisons Service
(TPS) needs to collaborate with other institutions such as the Institute of Adult
Education (IAE) to restructure the current prison education courses to better reflect
prisoners’ needs. This requires effective needs assessment. There is a high possibility
that if inmates’ learning needs were considered, the number of prisoners involved in
prison educational programmes would have increased. One would argue that the
irrelevant curricula, as seen in the current study, have possibly contributed to inmates’
negative attitude towards prison education (Wlodkowski, 2008).
Non-credentialed courses
Some adult education literature suggests that the majority of adult learners can be
motivated to learn for the sake of attaining formal qualifications (credentials) (Kim,
Hagedorn, Williamson, & Chapman, 2004; Vermeersch & Vandenbroucke, 2009). In
the prison education context, Braggins and Talbot (2003) made similar observations
with respect to UK prisons. They found that some prisoners did not want to attend
education programmes which did not award certificates; they said it was “a waste of
time” (p. 35). The current study found that most educational programmes in the selected
prisons were non-credentialed. This lack of credentialed courses discouraged many
prisoners from participating in programmes. One prisoner said:
They don’t provide certificates for the courses they offer. If I study, I would
like to be awarded a certificate of graduation. (Matonya; inmate; Interview)
Jipe Vol. 12(2) December, 2020
46
A similar discouraging tone was also observed from prisoners who participated in
programmes. One of them complained:
Having no certificate awards in these programmes discourages the majority
of inmates from participating in education. At times, I also want to stop
attending these classes because I prefer to sit for the National Exams and be
awarded a certificate. (Simba; Inmate; FGI)
This study suggests that several inmates would want to attend educational programmes
which guarantee credentials. It is argued that the majority of prisoners would like to use
qualifications they gain from prison education to seek jobs (provided by employers or
through self-employment) and maybe to further their educational qualifications. One
can speculate that post-release employment would be more readily attainable if prison
education courses were accredited. Therefore, it is recommended that relevant
credentialed courses for prisoners should be introduced in Tanzanian prisons. However,
arguing this way does not mean that this study underplays the role of non-credit
education/training; such programmes have value for other purposes.
Lack of information among prison officers
Regarding information, the findings of the present study differ from those in
conventional adult education (Darkenwald & Merriam, 1982; Findsen & Formosa,
2011; Merriam et al., 2007) and other prison education studies (Brosens, Donder, Dury,
& Verte, 2015; Crayton & Neusteter, 2008; Davis et al., 2013). The above studies
discussed a lack of information regarding learning opportunities on the part of learners
(prisoners). While this observation is also true in the Tanzanian prison context, the
current study found a significant number of prison officers who were not aware of the
opportunity to prison education that prisoners have been granted by the 2011 Prison
Education Guide (The United Republic of Tanzania, 2011). Some prison officers said:
A guide for prison education? No, I have never seen or heard about such
document. Therefore, I’m not sure if it exists or not. If it exists, I don’t know
its content. (Tumaini; Prison Officer; Interview)
I’m aware of the existence of the said document. It was introduced a long
time ago, during Nyerere’s era, but many prison officers are not notified of
that document. The document is shelved, and in most cases, it is not in
practice. Take an example; you have mentioned about the need for prison
Jipe Vol. 12(2) December, 2020
47
education coordinator at regional and prison levels, but in practice, we
don’t have those people. (Tamimu; Prison Officer; Interview)
Tamimu’s comment suggests that he was misinformed about the 2011 Prison Education
Guide (The United Republic of Tanzania, 2011); he associated it with Nyerere (the first
president of Tanzania), who was in power between 1961 and 1985 (over 30 years ago).
Hence, it is argued here that it was the prison staff who did not have reliable
information, suggesting a poor flow of information within the Tanzanian prison system.
For this reason, one can assume that there was poor implementation of this policy as
many staff were not aware of the document (Prison Education Guide) (Stonemeier,
Trader, Kaloi, & Williams, 2016). Presumably, the majority of prisoners also were not
aware of the learning possibilities in prisons, because the information was not passed
on. At this point, it is fair to argue that the poor flow of information regarding the Prison
Education Guide may be a result of the low importance attributed to the document, and
to prison education itself.
Discriminatory conditions set by Prisons
The findings of the present study suggest that prisons have set conditions such as
inmates’ behaviour and sentence length which determine whether a prisoner can be
involved in vocational training. Some participants commented:
We allow inmates to attend vocational training based on their interests and
willingness. However, we control their number because we cannot allow
everyone to join due to limited spaces that we have. Therefore, apart from
inmates’ interests and willingness, we also consider their sentence length
and their behaviour before considering them for vocational training. That’s
what we do to control their number. (Yahaya; Prison Officer; Interview)
Some other prisoners are not allowed to join the course due to bad
behaviour. They [prison staff] have selected us based on our behaviours
and sentence length. In our team, we are all serving more than five years.
(Kobelo; Inmate; Interview)
Others are short sentenced prisoners. Therefore, they are not given a
chance to join our class as the trade requires a substantial amount of time
to understand it well. (Kobelo; Inmate; Interview)
For literacy class, it is the illiterate prisoner who decides whether to join
class or not, but for metal works and mechanics the criteria is set by prison
officials. I have never attended any class as I’m not illiterate and I have
never been proposed by the concerned prison officers to join any vocational
class. (Isihaka; Inmate; Interview)
Jipe Vol. 12(2) December, 2020
48
For this reason, one would argue that prison management assumes that attending
vocational training is a privilege to prisoners; it is not their right (Quan-Baffour &
Zawada, 2012; UN, 1948, 2016). Withholding prisoners from attending vocational
training is, therefore, often a punishment for prisoners’ inappropriate behaviour. This
finding echoes observations from the USA (Klein et al., 2004) and the UK (Braggins &
Talbot, 2003) where some prisoners were not allowed to join educational programmes
because of misbehaviour. In this article, it is viewed that restricting prisoners’ access to
education because of misbehaviour is to ignore the fact that prisoners are in custody
because of their misbehaviour within that society. Prison officers have a moral
obligation to help prisoners change their behaviours (rehabilitation) through various
programmes (Braggins & Talbot, 2005). Also, restricting inmates from educational
programmes is to ignore the fact that prisoners are human beings (O'Connor, 2017) who
are entitled to an education (The United Republic of Tanzania, 1998; UN, 1948).
Poor policy interpretation
As stated previously, the TPS has introduced a Prison Education Guide, which sets
parameters for educational practices in prison. However, some participants’ responses
suggested poor interpretation of this policy document. Although the Prison Education
Guide recommends all prisons conduct prison education programmes (The United
Republic of Tanzania, 2011), the findings suggest that many prisons do not do this.
participants said:
No, we don’t have any educational programmes here. My friend, many
prisons [in Tanzania] don’t have educational programmes, but I know few
prisons with some educational programmes. These prisons include Kipera,
Iwambi, Kajiungeni, and Kilimanjaro. (Tumaini; Prison Officer; Interview)
In this prison, we don’t have any educational programmes. Daily, prisoners
are assigned manual work as part of their sentence. It may be working in
government buildings, on farms, or in a sisal factory. (Gwakisa; Prison
Officer; Interview)
I have never engaged in any educational activity since my arrival in this
prison because there are no such programmes. But for sure, if there were
any programmes, I would have been one of the students in those
programmes. (Makingi; Inmate; FGI)
The Prison Education Guide recommends that inmates should be allowed to take
recognised examinations. It states, if possible, “during the National Examinations, the
Jipe Vol. 12(2) December, 2020
49
examinations may be brought into prisons. If not, the candidates [prisoners] may be
escorted to the appropriate centre in civilian dress” (The United Republic of Tanzania,
2011, p. 2). Very few heads of prisons allowed prisoners to take recognised
examinations. An exceptional example is Kipera prison where prisoners take their
examinations at the nearby VETA College or Mlali Primary School. Some heads of
prisons do not offer that opportunity; the remaining four prisons selected for this study
did not offfer such opportunity to prisoners. Komba, one of the Institute of Adult
Education officers stated:
As opposed to the Songea prisoner – who was allowed by the head of the
prison to sit his National Examinations at a centre outside Songea prison –
Iwambi’s head refused to give them [prisoners who qualified to take
National Examinations] permission. He said that he didn’t have the
mandate to allow prisoners to take their examinations outside of prison. He
directed us to seek permission from the Commissioner General of Prison
(CGP). (Komba; IAE; Interview)
He further said:
We wrote a letter [to the Head Prison Office] to seek permission for inmates
to sit the examinations outside the prison. Unfortunately, the TPS office
never responded to our letter [despite the follow-up]. As a result, those
inmates didn’t sit those examinations. That discouraged the inmates to
proceed with the programme, as well as others to join. (Komba; IAE;
Interview)
These findings indicate inconsistency in the alignment between Prison Education Guide
and practices at prison level. Lack of educational programmes in many prisons and the
failure to allow inmates to take up their National Examinations in the centre outside of
prison, as seen at Iwambi, suggest the possibility that the TPS has failed to engage with
the Prison Education Guide (Stonemeier et al., 2016). This is an indication that there is
limited chance for Tanzanian inmates to attain rehabilitation.
Dispositional Barriers to Prison Education
As noted previously, in this study, issues related to dispositional barriers were few.
Some participants provided stories related to lack of interest and truancy; the only sub-
themes which could be labelled under this category.
Jipe Vol. 12(2) December, 2020
50
Perceived Lack of interest
This study found that many prisoners were not participating in prison education. Some
responses suggested that perceived lack of interest on the part of prisoners contributed
to their poor involvement in prison education. They said:
I’m close to one prisoner who doesn’t have the ability to read and write. I
have been trying to encourage her to join me in class, but she refuses. She
always tells me that in her life, there is nothing that she dislikes more than
schooling. She considers attending education as a waste of time. She thinks
that education can’t help her in any way based on her current age. She is in
her 40s. (Chaurembo; Inmate; FGI)
Some other prisoners just don’t like to engage in educational activities. It
becomes difficult to encourage those inmates to join classes. (Edward;
Inmate; FGI)
I have never joined a class. My main reason is that I’m not interested in
studying. I just don’t feel ready. (Peter; Inmate; Interview)
This finding suggests that there are several prisoners in the selected prisons who had no
interest in prison education. It can be argued that prisoners’ negative attitude, values,
and perceptions have contributed to their lack of interest, which resulted in poor
involvement in prison education (Cross, 1979; Merriam et al., 2007). It is possible that
this lack of interest among prisoners is linked to their previous negative schooling
experiences (Findsen & Formosa, 2011; Moriarity, 2014; Wilson, 2007). With such an
attitude, one can argue that the identified inmates have limited chances to gain
rehabilitation.
Truancy and dropout
In this study, truancy and dropout were mentioned among the problems that limited the
effectiveness of prison education. As mentioned earlier, educational programmes in the
selected prisons were vocational training, literacy education, general education, and
primary education curriculum. However, complaints in truancy and dropout were only
recorded in literacy and general education programmes. Some participants said:
As monthly reports show, there is a problem of truancy and dropouts among
the learners. I will give you some of these reports so that you can verify this.
(Kapinga; AEO; Interview)
Some prisoners joined the programme and dropped out after some time.
(Mkude; Inmate teacher; FGI)
Jipe Vol. 12(2) December, 2020
51
In this class, learners’ attendance is good. However, sometimes some of
them miss class. (Kidawa; Inmate teacher; Interview)
I was eager to learn, but I faced the challenge of having no learning
materials. At some point, I didn’t have any notebook or pen. That
discouraged me, and therefore, I opted out. (Kassim; Inmate; Interview)
The monthly reports collected from the field backed up this finding related to non-credit
programmes. Reports supplied by prison authorities showed discrepancies between
registered learners and their attendance rates. Although in this case, Kassim’s comment
suggests that he had his own (probably strong) reasons to quit studies, it is still possible
that dispositional factors contributed to his failure to persist, as his classmates did.
Several other prisoners (his classmates) persisted in learning despite the lack of
notebooks; they were taking notes on pieces of papers.
Limitations
As mentioned earlier, this article is a reflection of the findings of a qualitative research
project carried out in five Tanzanian prisons. The five selected prisons may not be a
representative sample of 126 Tanzanian prisons. Hence, the findings discussed in this
paper may not be relevant for generalisation. Readers can decide whether the findings
discussed in this article are relevant to their contexts or not.
Conclusions
This article addressed one major question: What are the barriers to prison education in
the Tanzanian context. The barriers to prison education in this study have been grouped
into “prison and imprisonment situation,” and “dispositional barriers”. However, in this
study, most barriers to prison education are within the prison and imprisonment
situation. Very few were labelled as dispositional, though they may have been latent and
potentially under-reported by participants. It is suggested in this paper that prisons place
little focus on prison education. The TPS has not worked hard enough to improve
prisoners’ access to education. consequently, a few prisoners had access to prison
education. Nevertheless, it is noted here that this is not a new phenomenon in the
African context. Most prisoners in the African countries are reported to have limited
access to prison education due to a shortage of resources – human, physical, and fiscal
(Asiimwe & Kinengyere, 2011; Dissel, 2008; Msoroka, 2018; Sarkin, 2008). There are
Jipe Vol. 12(2) December, 2020
52
two possible explanations of the little focus on prison education in the Tanzanian
contexts. First: despite the pledge to focus on prisoners’ rehabilitation, the TPS and the
Tanzanian penal system in general still use a “conservative” philosophy to
imprisonment (Kinemo, 2002; Nyoka, 2013). A conservative philosophy of
imprisonment holds that prisoners deserve punishment because they rationally choose to
commit crimes. Hence, “Prison life should be uncomfortable – even painful – so that
rational people will be deterred from committing a crime. If a short prison term doesn’t
work, the next sentence should be longer” (Pollock, 2014, p. 9). It can be argued that the
prison and imprisonment situational barriers to prison education were affected by this
philosophy. Prison education is often seen by society as a soft option for criminals; it is
not encouraged within a conservative philosophy. Perhaps this view is common in most
prisons in the African context (Sarkin, 2008); it limits the possibility of prisoners’
access to education.
However, studies suggest that conservative approaches to imprisonment have failed to
address offending and reoffending (Cullen, Jonson, & Nagin, 2011). Therefore, it is
recommended that the TPS needs to reassess its approaches and consider prison
education as a high priority. It is suggested that the TPS adapt a more liberal philosophy
to imprisonment, which supports prison education (Pollock, 2014). With a liberal
philosophy towards imprisonment, the TPS may reduce the barriers to prison education,
as seen in this study, and improve prisoners’ access to education, which, arguably, can
reduce reoffending rate among the Tanzanian inmates (Callan & Gardner, 2007). This is
a relevant argument from rehabilitation theory, which guided this study. Second:
Tanzanian prisons are “total institutions” (Amundsen et al., 2017; Msoroka, 2018).
Total institutions are usually restricted and isolated organisations. They have minimal
interactions with other organisations and people outside of the prison system (Goffman,
1962). Several prison and imprisonment barriers, including inadequate infrastructures,
irrelevant curricula, and insufficient teaching and learning resources could be reduced if
prisons collaborate with other institutions and stakeholders such as the Institute of Adult
Education, the Open University of Tanzania, and NGOs. Being total institutions, prisons
do not benefit from resources which could be offered by other organisations and
Jipe Vol. 12(2) December, 2020
53
individuals. It is suggested that prisons become much more open to inviting partnerships
in rehabilitation programmes, especially in terms of providing prison education.
REFERENCES
Amundsen, D., Msoroka, M., & Findsen, B. (2017). “It’s a case of access”: The
problematics of accessing research participants. Waikato Journal of Education,
22(4), 5-17. 10.15663/wje.v22i4.425
Asiimwe, G., & Kinengyere, A. A. (2011, August). Role of libraries and information in
the empowerment of women prisoners in Uganda. Paper presented at the World
Library and Information Congress: 77th IFLA General Conference and Assembly,
San Juan, Puerto Rico
Bozick, R., Steele, J., Davis, L., & Turner, S. (2018). Does providing inmates with
education improve postrelease outcomes? A meta-analysis of correctional
education programs in the United States. Journal of Experimental Criminology,
14(3), 389–428. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-018-9334-6
Braggins, J., & Talbot, J. (2003). Time to learn: Prisoners' views on prison education.
London: Prison Reform Trust
Braggins, J., & Talbot, J. (2005). Wings of Learning: the role of the prison officer in
supporting prisoner education. London: The Centre for Crime and Justice Studies
Brosens, D., Donder, L. D., Dury, S., & Verte, D. (2015). Barriers to participation in
vocational orientation programmes among prisoners. Journal of Prison Education
and Reentry, 2(2), 8-22. 10.15845/jper.v2i2.817
Callan, V., & Gardner, J. (2007). The role of VET in recidivism in Australia. In S.
Dawe (Ed.), Vocational education and training for adult prisoners and offenders
in Australia: Research readings (pp. 34-46). Adelaide, SA: NCVER.
Campbell, K. M. (2005). Rehabilitation theory. In M. Bosworth (Ed.), Encyclopaedia
of prisons and correctional facilities (Vol. 2, pp. 831-834). California, CA:
Thousand Oaks.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education (6ed.).
New York, NY: Routledge.
Collins, H. (2010). Creative research: The theory and practice of research for the
creative industries. London: Bloomsbury.
Crayton, A., & Neusteter, S. R. (2008, March). The current state of correctional
education. Paper presented at the Reentry Roundtable on Education Conference,
New York, NY
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
approaches (2ed.). London, UK: Sage.
Cross, K. P. (1979). A critical review of state and national studies of the needs and
interests of adult learners. The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 27(3),
21-22. 10.1080/07377366.1979.10400735
Cullen, F. T., & Gendreau, P. (2000). Assessing correctional rehabilitation: Policy,
practice, and prospects. Criminal Justice, 3, 109-175.
Cullen, F. T., Jonson, C. L., & Nagin, D. S. (2011). Prisons do not reduce recidivism:
The high cost of ignoring science. The Prison Journal, 91(3), 48S–65S.
10.1177/0032885511415224
Jipe Vol. 12(2) December, 2020
54
Darkenwald, G. G., & Merriam, S. B. (1982). Adult education: Foundations of practice.
New York, NY: Harper and Row.
Davis, L. M., Bozick, R., Steele, J. L., Saunders, J., & Miles, J. N. V. (2013).
Evaluating the effectiveness of correctional education: A meta-analysis of
programs that provide education to incarcerated adults. Washington, DC: RAND
Davis, L. M., Steele, J. L., Bozick, R., Williams, M. V., Turner, S., Miles, J. N. V., . . .
Steinberg, P. S. (2014). How effective is correctional education, and where do we
go from here? The results of a comprehensive evaluation. Washington, DC:
RAND
Dhlamini, J., & Heeralal, P. (2014). Factors and circumstances leading to adults
dropping out from community colleges. Journal of Educational and Social
Research, 4(3), 449-458. 10.5901/jesr.2014.v4n3p449
Dissel, A. (2008). Rehabilitation and reintegration in African prisons. In J. Sarkin (Ed.),
Human rights in African prisons (pp. 155-177). Ohio, OH: Ohio University.
Edwards, M., & Cunningham, S. (2016). Supporting offenders into employment – a
joint initiative. Practice: The New Zealand Corrections Journal, 4(2), 42-45.
Erisman, W., & Contardo, J. B. (2005). Learning to reduce recidivism: A 50-state
analysis of postsecondary correctional education policy. Washington, DC: The
Institute for Higher Education Policy
Findsen, B., & Formosa, M. (2011). Lifelong learning in later life: A handbook on older
adult learning. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense.
Findsen, B., & McCullough, S. (2007, September). Older adults’ engagement with
further and higher education in the West of Scotland: Tracking educational
journeys. Paper presented at the Adult Education Research Conference, Halifax,
NS
Gboku, M., & Lekoko, R. N. (2007). Developing programmes for adult learners in
Africa. Hamburg, Germany: UNESCO.
Goffman, E. (1962). Asylums: Essays on the social situation of mental patients and
other inmates. Chicago: Aldine.
Inmate Rehabilitation and Welfare Services Tanzania. (2014). Recommendations in
relation to the Tanzania's Prison Service population management based on the
study on jail delivery exercise. IRaWS-T
Johnstone, J. W. C. (1963). Volunteers for learning: A study of the educational pursuits
of American adults. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Kim, K., Hagedorn, M., Williamson, J., & Chapman, C. (2004). Participation in adult
Education and lifelong learning: 2000-01. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Education
Kinemo, R. E. J. (2002, July 8-11). Contemporary Tanzanian penal policy: A critical
analysis. Paper presented at the Crime in Eastern Africa: Past and Present
Perspectives, Naivasha, Kenya
Klein, S., Tolbert, M., Bugarin, R., Cataldi, E. F., & Tauschek, G. (2004). Correctional
education: Assessing the status of prison programs and information needs. Jessup,
M.D: U.S Department of Education
Knowles, M. S. (1980). The modern practice of adult education: From pedagogy to
andragogy. Chicago, CA: Chicago Association.
Knowles, M. S., Holton, E. F., & Swanson, R. A. (2005). The adult learner: The
definitive classic in adult education and human resource development (6ed.).
Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Jipe Vol. 12(2) December, 2020
55
Koski, L. (2009). Finland. In O.-J. Eikeland, T. Manger & A. Asbjørnsen (Eds.),
Education in Nordic prisons: Prisoners' educational backgrounds, preferences
and motivation (pp. 67-97). Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers.
Kyalo, D. N., Muiwa, A. S., Matuta, P. D., & Rutere, M. J. W. (2014). Physical learning
environment and inmates participation in post literacy project in government
prisons in Kenya. Issues and Ideas in Education, 2(2), 159-176.
10.15415/iie.2014.22012
Lochner, L., & Moretti, E. (2004). The effect of education on crime: Evidence from
prison inmates, arrests, and self-Reports. American Economic Review, 94(1), 155-
189. 10.1257/000282804322970751
Mackenzie, N., & Knipe, S. (2006). Research dilemmas: Paradigms, methods and
methodology. Issues in Educational Research, 16(2), 193-205.
Mboje, L. A. (2013). Assessment of the role of vocational skills in rehabilitation of
Tanzania prisoners: A case of Ukonga and Isanga central prisons. Mzumbe
University, Morogoro, Tanzania.
McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (1993). Research in education: A conceptual
introduction (3ed.). New York, NY: HarperCollins College.
Merriam, S. B., Caffarella, R. S., & Baumgartner, L. M. (2007). Learning in adulthood:
A comprehensive guide (3ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mikongoti, P., Mlowe, P., & Wazambi, F. (2016). Tanzania human rights report 2015:
Tanzania Mainland. Dar es Salaam: Legal and Human Rights Centre
Mokwena, D. (2008). Offenders show growing interest in ABET. SA Corrections
Today, 12-13
Moriarity, A. (2014). Prisoners’ experiences of foundation skills – an intensive adult
literacy and numeracy programme delivered in New Zealand prisons. Victoria
University of Wellington, Wellington.
Msamada, D. N. (2013). Prospects and challenges of prisoners in accessing education
through open and distance learning system: The case of two prisons in Mbeya
region, Tanzania (MA. Education Dissertation). University of Dodoma, Dodoma,
Tanzania.
Msoroka, M. S. (2018). Prison education in Tanzania: An Exploration of policy and
practice (PhD Thesis). The University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand.
Nyoka, J. W. (2013). Can prison reforms impact on public safety? The Law Reformer
Journal, 4(1), 39-56.
O'Connor, T. (2017). Prisoners are human being too. Waikato Times, p. 6.
Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (2ed.). Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage.
Pollock, J. M. (2014). The rationale for imprisonment. In A. G. Blackburn, S. K. Fowler
& J. M. Pollock (Eds.), Prisons today and tomorrow (3 ed., pp. 1-21). Burlington,
MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Quan-Baffour, K. P., & Zawada, B. E. (2012). Education programmes for prison
inmates: Reward for offences or hope for a better life? Sociology Soc Anth, 3(2),
73-81.
Sarkin, J. (2008). Prisons in Africa: An evaluation from a human rights perspective.
International Journal on Human Rights, 5(9), 23-49.
Sauwa, S. (2010). Robo tatu ya wafungwa mbumbu Dodoma [Three quota of Dodoma
prisoners are illiterates]. Nipashe, p. 17.
Jipe Vol. 12(2) December, 2020
56
Setoi, S. M. (2012). Youth and adult learning and education in Lesotho. Johannesburg:
OSISA
Snape, D., & Spencer, L. (2003). The foundations of qualitative research. In J. Ritchie
& J. Lewis (Eds.), Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science
students and researchers (pp. 1-23). London, UK: Sage.
Stonemeier, J., Trader, B., Kaloi, L., & Williams, G. (2016). Indicators of efffective
policy development and implementation. SWIFT Center(8)
Teddlie, C., & Yu, F. (2007). Mixed methods sampling: A typology with examples.
Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 77-100. 10.1177/2345678906292430
The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. (2012). Introductory handbook on the
prevention of recidivism and the social reintegration of offenders. Vienna,
Austria: UN.
The United Republic of Tanzania. (1998). The constitution of the United Republic of
Tanzania. Dar es Salaam: Attorney - General Office.
The United Republic of Tanzania. (2011). Mwongozo wa uendeshaji wa elimu ya watu
wazima wafungwa magerezani [Prison Education Guide]. Dar es Salaam,
Tanzania: TPS.
The United Republic of Tanzania. (2014). United Republic of Tanzania - Mainland:
Education for all 2015 national review. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: MoEVT
The United Republic of Tanzania. (2017a). Hotuba ya Waziri wa Mambo ya Ndani ya
nchi Mhe. Mwigulu Lameck Nchemba (Mb.), akiwasilisha bungeni makadirio ya
mapato na matumizi kwa mwaka 2017/18 [Hon. Mwigulu Lameck Nchemba
(MP.), The Minister for Home Affairs' budget speech for 2017/18]. Dodoma:
Ministry of Home Affairs Retrieved from https://www.moha.go.tz.
The United Republic of Tanzania. (2017b). Orodha ya magereza na makambi yote
Tanzania Bara [Prisons in Tanzania Mainland]. Retrieved from http:// magereza
.go.tz
The United Republic of Tanzania. (2017c). Takwimu za wafungwa na mahabusu
Tanzania Bara kwa mwaka 2013-2014 [Statistics for Tanzanian convicted and
remanded prisoners between 2013 and 2014]. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: TPS
Thomas, J. (1995). The ironies of prison education. In H. S. Davidson (Ed.), Schooling
in a "total institution": Critical perspectives on prison education (pp. 25-41).
London: Bergin & Garvey.
Thornberry, T. P., & Farnworth, M. (1982). Social correlates of criminal involvement:
Further evidence on the relationship between social status and criminal behavior.
American Sociological Review, 47(4), 505-518.
Tongco, M. D. C. (2007). Purposive sampling as a tool for informant election.
Ethnobotany Research and Applications, 5, 147-158.
UN. (1948). The universal declaration of human rights. Retrieved from http://www
.un.org /en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a26
UN. (2016). United Nations standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners (the
Nelson Mandela rules). Geneva, Switzerland: UN.
Vermeersch, L., & Vandenbroucke, A. (2009). The access of adults to formal and
nonformal adult education. Country report: Belgium (Flemish Community).
Brussels, Belgium: University of Leuven
Victorian Ombudsman. (2015). Investigation into the rehabilitation and reintegration of
prisoners in Victoria. Melbourne: Victorian Ombudsman
Weatherburn, D. (2001). What causes crime? Crime and Justice Bulletin, 54, 1-12.
Jipe Vol. 12(2) December, 2020
57
Webster, C., & Kingston, S. (2014). Anti‐poverty strategies for the UK: Poverty and
crime review. Leeds, UK: Joseph Rowntree Foundation
Wilson, A. (2007). "I go to get away from the cockroaches:" Educentricity and the
politics of education in prisons. The Joumal of Correctional Education, 58(2),
185-203.
Wlodkowski, R. J. (2008). Enhancing adult motivation to learn: A comprehensive guide
for teaching all adults (3ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Wlodkowski, R. J., & Ginsberg, M. B. (1995). Diversity and motivation: Culturally
responsive teaching. San Fransico, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Workman, K. (n.d.). How should we reintegrate prisoners? Retrieved from http://www.
rethinking.org.nz/assets/Newsletter_PDF/Issue_104/07%20Paper%20on%20Priso
ner%20Rentegration.pdf
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4ed., Vol. Applied Social
Research Method Series). Thousand Oaks, London: Sage.
Jipe Vol. 12(2) December, 2020
