When Checking a Box is not Enough: The (Un)Readability of PREA Messaging

Abstract

The Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) was implemented to prevent sexual assault within correctional facilities. To communicate PREA principles to inmates, written materials including handbooks, policies, and brochures are utilized. This research evaluates the readability of PREA messaging, employing three established metrics: Flesh Reading Ease Score, Flesch–Kincaid Grade Level, and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook. Findings reveal significant deviation from recommended reading targets for both the general (7th–8th grade) and inmate (5th–6th grade) populations. Prison Rape Elimination Act policies averaged a 16th-grade level, raising concerns regarding the efficacy of PREA implementation and compliance in light of potential comprehension challenges.

Keywords

PREA readability policy incarceration

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Archambeault

W. G.

Archambeault

B. J.

(1983). Readability and reading comprehension problems among correctional employees: Implications for policy implementation. Journal of Correctional Education, 34(1), 18–23.

Betts

E. A.

(1946). Foundations of reading instruction, with emphasis on differentiated guidance. American Book Company.

Bureau of Justice Assistance (2014). PREA compliance audit instrument checklist of policies/procedures and other documents. https://nicic.gov/resources/nic-library/webinars-broadcasts/prea-prisons-and-jails

Burek

M. W.

Liederbach

J. C.

(2021). Tell us how you really feel: Validating an inmate social climate survey. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 46(2), 209–231. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-020-09570-0

Caspar

R. A.

(n.d.). Securing informed consent from less educated respondents: Results from the national Inmate Survey. https://www.fcsm.gov/assets/files/docs/2009FCSM_Caspar_VII-A.pdf

Dillon

Colling

(2010). Effectiveness of written materials in a rehabilitative program for female offenders: A case study at the Montana Women's Prison. Journal of Correctional Education, 61(4), 335–347.

Flesch

(1948). A new readability yardstick. Journal of Applied Psychology, 32(3), 221–233. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0057532

Gray

S. A.

Zraick

R. I.

Atcherson

S. R.

(2019). Readability of individuals with disabilities education act part B procedural safeguards: An update. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 50(3), 373–384. https://doi.org/10.1044/2018_lshss-18-0057

Greenberg

Dunleavy

Kutner

(2007). Literacy behind bars: Results from the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy Prison Survey. NCES 2007-473. National Center for Education Statistics.

10.

Greenfield

D. P.

Dougherty

E. J.

Jackson

R. M.

Podboy

J. W.

Zimmerman

M. L.

(2001). Retrospective evaluation of Miranda reading levels and waiver competency. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 19(2), 75–86.

11.

Hanish

S. J.

Cherian

Baumann

Gieg

S. D.

DeFroda

(2022). Reducing the use of complex words and reducing sentence length to <15 words improves readability of patient education materials regarding sports medicine knee injuries. Arthroscopy, Sports Medicine, and Rehabilitation, 5(1), e1–e9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asmr.2022.10.004

12.

Harrell

Hastings

diZerega

(2015). Making PREA and victim services accessible for incarcerated people with disabilities: An implementation guide for practitioners on the adult and juvenile standards. https://www.vera.org/downloads/publications/prea-victim-services-incarcerated-people-disabilities-guide.pdf

13.

Hastings

Brickman

(2020). Developing a PREA-compliant language access plan for incarcerated people who are limited English proficient. Vera Institute. https://www.vera.org/downloads/publications/prea-compliant-language-access-plan-for-incarcerated-people.pdf

14.

Helms

J. L.

(2003). Analysis of Miranda reading levels across jurisdictions: Implications for evaluating waiver competency. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 3(1), 25–37. https://doi.org/10.1300/J158v03n01_03

15.

Jenness

Smyth

(2011). The passage and implementation of the Prison Rape Elimination Act: Legal endogeneity and the uncertain road from symbolic law to instrumental effects. Stanford Law & Policy Review, 22(2), 489.

16.

Kahn

Zapf

P. A.

Cooper

V. G.

(2006). Readability of Miranda warnings and waivers: Implications for evaluating Miranda comprehension. Law and Psychology Review, 30(1), 119.

17.

Kowalski

M. A.

(2020). Hiring and training requirements for correctional officers: A statutory analysis. The Prison Journal, 100(1), 98–125. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885519882342

18.

Krienert

J. L.

Walsh

J. A.

Kohls

M. A.

(2023). An empirical analysis of the (un)readability of inmate handbooks. Manuscript submitted for publication.

19.

Malkin

M. L.

DeJong

(2019). Protections for transgender inmates under PREA: A comparison of state correctional policies in the United States. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 16(4), 393–407. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-018-0354-9

20.

Moster

A. N.

Jeglic

E. L.

(2009). Prison warden attitudes toward prison rape and sexual assault: Findings since the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA). The Prison Journal, 89(1), 65–78. https://doi.org/10.1177/003288550832998

21.

Owens-Murphy

(2022). Reading behind bars: Literacy and survival in US prison literature. Humanities, 12(1), 2. https://doi.org/10.3390/h12010002

22.

PREA Brochure: Template (2016). https://www.prearesourcecenter.org/resource/prea-brochure-template

23.

Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003, Pub. L. No. 108-79, 117.

24.

Rampey

B. D.

Keiper

Mohadjer

Krenzke

Thornton

Hogan

(2016). Highlights from the US PIACC survey of incarcerated adults. National Center for Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2016/2016040.pdf

25.

Rothwell

(2020). Assessing the economic gains of eradicating illiteracy nationally and regionally in the United States. https://www.barbarabush.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/BBFoundation_GainsFromEradicatingIlliteracy_9_8.pdf

26.

Rudes

D. S.

Magnuson

Portillo

Hattery

(2021). Sex logics: Negotiating the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) against its’ administrative, safety, and cultural burdens. Punishment & Society, 23(2), 241–259. https://doi.org/10.1177/1462474520952155

27.

Schuhmann

R. A.

Wodahl

E. J.

(2011). Prison reform through federal legislative intervention: The case of the Prison Rape Elimination Act. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 22(1), 111–128. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-018-0354-9

28.

Shippen

M. E.

Houchins

D. E.

Crites

S. A.

Derzis

N. C.

Patterson

(2010). An examination of the basic reading skills of incarcerated males. Adult Learning, 21(3-4), 4–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/1045159510021003

29.

Small

Platania

Cutler

(2013). Assessing the readability of capital pattern jury instructions. Jury Expert, 25(1), 18.

30.

Smith

H. P.

(2020). Evaluating the implementation of the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA): A “lessons learned” approach. Evaluation and Program Planning, 83(1), 101855. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2020.101855

31.

Smith

H. P.

Ferdik

Dunton

Bolaji

(2023). An assessment of the knowledge, support, and behavior surrounding the implementation of the Prison Rape Elimination Act. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 50(7), 1016–1034. https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548231164966

32.

Szmuda

Özdemir

Ali

Singh

Syed

M. T.

Słoniewski

(2020). Readability of online patient education material for the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19): A cross-sectional health literacy study. Public Health, 185(1), 21–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2020.05.041

33.

Wang

L.-W.

Miller

M. J.

Schmitt

M. R.

Wen

F. K.

(2013). Assessing readability formula differences with written health information materials: Application, results, and recommendations. Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy, 9(5), 503–516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sapharm.2012.05.009

34.

Weiss

B. D.

(2003). Health literacy: A manual for clinicians .

35.

Worrall

A. P.

Connolly

M. J.

O’Neill

O’Doherty

Thornton

K. P.

McNally

McConkey

S. J.

De Barra

(2020). Readability of online COVID-19 health information: A comparison between four English speaking countries. BMC Public Health, 20(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-09710-5