In Portugal, in April 2023, there were 11,507 prisoners and 3,081 individuals under conditional release [1]. According to the Portuguese Prison Services, in December 2022, 33.7% of the incarcerated population attended either educational training (i.e., regular school – 2,684 individuals) or professional training (i.e., professional/vocational courses – 1,196 individuals). However, little is known about prisoners' motives for attending educational and training programs (ETPs) and its effect on their rehabilitation and post-release social integration. 

Prisoners have, on average, lower literacy and education levels than the general population. In Portugal, in 2022, from a universe of 12,383 prisoners, 469 could only read and 392 prisoners could neither read nor write (PORDATA). Illiteracy or the lack of educational and professional skills to support a successful community (re)integration are identified as key challenges for former prisoners, limiting their ability to find post-release employment. Thus, providing adequate education (a basic human right according to the United Nations) and training to prisoners is vital to enhance the chances of a successful (re)integration into society. 

However, ETPs attendance may not be what it seems at first. Individuals might attend ETPs for reasons other than educational, such as to escape from or avoid aspects of prison life, prison work, or prison routines, the so-called "push-factors" in contrast with the "pull-factors" (i.e., when individuals act in sync with ETPs intended purpose). These extrinsic factors might impact skills acquisition, ETPs’ dropout and conclusion rates, and therefore, an individual's social (re)integration potential. 

Mind the Gap is an innovative project, not only because it concentrates on a particularly vulnerable population but also because it uses a large and diverse sample across ages and other sociodemographic characteristics. It maps a constellation of enabling factors that increase the probability of being professionally integrated after prison release, as well as the barriers that reinforce individuals' vulnerability to post-release unemployment. These results bring critical evidence to be used in the (re)design and implementation of ETPs. 

This report characterizes prisoners’ and ex-prisoners’ (individuals in conditional release) motivations to attend ETPs and analyzes how these are related to educational participation, academic achievement, and ETPs' completion. Moreover, it explores the association between attending ETPs while incarcerated and post-release social (re)integration, namely on employment status, monthly income, and community integration [4;5].

This study’s sample includes 799 individuals. Of these 535 imprisoned ( 447 males - 83.6% and 87 females - 16.3%) with ages between 18 and 76 years old, and 264 under conditional release (235 males - 89% and 27 females - 10.2%) with ages between 22 and 72 years old.

The sample was defined according to the following criteria: significance (i.e., the number of sample's effectives) and representativeness (i.e., the sample's quality guaranteed by the sampling method). Sample significance was calculated using the Krejcie and Morgan (1970) formula. Participants were selected randomly. Sociodemographic information (e.g., age, gender), education-related variables (e.g., motives to attend school/training, self-perception regarding school enrolment, academic achievement), and social (re)integration-related variables (e.g., professional integration after prison release, involvement with the community, monthly income) were collected in a paper-and-pencil format (i.e., presential) using self-report questionnaires.

Motives to attend ETPs can be aggregated into three categories: competence building, social reason and escapism, and future planning. Competence building and future planning motives are the most reported, while social reasons and escapism motives are the least reported.

An in-depth analysis of the specific reasons to attend ETPs shows that the motives most reported as important and very important by individuals in prison and under conditional release to attend ETPs were those related to future planning, such as getting a job after release (91.7%), improving a previous grade (90.4%), coping with life after prison (89.6%), and improving self-esteem (85.3%), and competence building, such as spending time doing something sensible and useful (91.2%), satisfying the desire to learn (89.4%), learning more about a subject (89.2%), and making serving time easier (85.1%). Social reasons and escapism from the prison environment, such as school is better than working in prison (56.6%), being encouraged to do so (56%), and because friends are going to school (34.5%), were identified by a smaller number of individuals as important and very important motives to attend ETPs.

A comparison between motive categories (i.e., future planning, social reasons and escapism, and competence building) showed significant differences between imprisoned individuals and those under conditional release. Individuals in prison have higher scores in all motive categories and they see more benefits in participating in ETPs. Their mean scores of future planning motives and competence building motives were relatively high compared to their mean scores of social and escapism motives.

A more detailed comparison between individuals in prison and under conditional release shows significant differences regarding the specific motives to attend ETPs. Incarcerated individuals tended to give more importance to future planning, such as getting a job after release (60.6% vs. 42.9%), coping with life after prison (55% vs. 34%), avoiding committing a crime (49.5% vs. 32.1%), or making ETPs a bridge to more education (36.2% vs. 25.3%), and competence building, such as spend time doing something sensitive and useful (50.3% vs. 31.1%), satisfying the desire to learn (47.4% vs. 29.5%), and learning more about a subject (39.3% vs. 29.5%), as motives to attend ETPs than individuals under conditional release. 

Individuals, in prison and under conditional release, who presented higher scores on future planning, social reasons and escapism, and competence building motives are more prone to attend ETPs than those who scored low in all these motives. In other words, those who are motivated to engage in education and training activities to plan their future or to prepare for life after release, are probably also motivated to build competencies, acquire knowledge and skills to support their post-prison life in the community, to escape from the prison environment, or for social reasons, such as interactions with others than just prison staff (e.g., teachers).

Individuals in prison and under conditional release with higher motivation to attend school report higher scores on future planning and competence building motives. There are no differences in motivation to attend ETPs among those who claim social reasons and escapism motives. Thus, motivations related to the preparation for life beyond release and knowledge and skills acquisition seem to be critical factors for the individuals’ engagement with school and training.

However, although individuals with higher academic achievement tend to report high scores in future planning and competence building motives, no statistically significant differences were found between motives to attend ETPs and academic achievement. In other words, the individuals’ motives to attend ETPs appear unrelated to their academic achievement. 

Individuals who report more competence building motives to attend ETPs have higher conclusion rates. In other words, the possibility of building competencies and acquiring knowledge and skills important to their post-prison life in the community seems to strongly drive individuals to conclude their training/education.
In addition, academic achievement is related to the conclusion of ETPs since individuals with good, very good, and excellent academic outcomes are more prone to conclude their education or training than those with insufficient and sufficient academic outcomes.
 

A large percentage of individuals under conditional release who attended ETPs (71.5%) and completed them (69.6%) are professionally integrated after serving time in prison. Similarly, a high percentage of individuals under conditional release who did not attend ETPs (63.4%) and those who did not conclude them (76.2%) are also professionally integrated. However, no significant differences were found among those who did not attend and/or conclude ETPs in prison. In other words, there is no deterministic ETPs impact on the professional (re)integration of individuals under conditional release.

For those who attended and/or concluded ETPs while in prison, more than three-quarters of the individuals who were employed before the imprisonment (79.2% and 76.9%, respectively) were employed after release, and more than half of those who were unemployed before the imprisonment (56.5% and 57.1%, respectively) were employed after release. This suggests a positive impact of ETPs, in particular, on individuals without professional occupation before serving time in prison, helping their (re)integration and enhancing their employment opportunities. 
No differences were found in monthly income between individuals who attended and/or completed ETPs and those who did not attend and/or concluded ETPs in monthly income. 

Considering the potential role of sociodemographic and pre-prison factors (e.g., age, sex, work before imprisonment, educational level prior to imprisonment) and prison factors (e.g., work while in prison, attend rehabilitation programs, visits while in prison, time in prison, time after release), we tried to understand which factors are related to professional integration after release (i.e., self-report of being professionally integrated after release). 
Being younger and professionally integrated before imprisonment significantly increase the likelihood of being professionally integrated after release (0.953 and 2.895 times more, respectively). 
Working in prison, to have been out of prison longer after incarcerationm, and attending ETPs while in prison are also associated with professional integration after release (2.653, 1.017, and 1.833 times more, respectively), but only marginally.

Individuals under conditional release who attended ETPs tend to evaluate positively the training/educational programs they attended, in particular in terms of acquisition or development of social and personal skills, reading and writing abilities, and post-release community integration. They also assessed ETPs positively in terms of personal development. 

Future planning and competence building are the biggest drivers of ETP attendance amidst individuals in prison and under conditional release. A smaller number of individuals identified social reasons and escapism from the prison environment as very important motives for attending ETPs. 
Although all three motive categories were related to ETPs attendance, the results might suggest that individuals who are motivated to engage in education/training to plan their future or to prepare for life upon release might also be motivated by the possibility of competence building, or knowledge and skills acquisition. This is particularly evident as only future planning and competence building were associated with better academic outcomes and competence building with ETPs conclusion. 
In short, although both “push factors" (i.e., forces that drive individuals away from something) and "pull factors" (i.e., forces that drive individuals towards something) help explain ETPs attendance, “pull factors” seem to be more related to academic achievement and ETPs conclusion. Faced with multiple options, individuals seem to weigh them and anticipate future rewards, such as the possibility of improving their abilities and skills or getting a job after their prison release. 
In terms of professional integration after release and monthly income, there were no differences found between those who attended and/or concluded and those who did not attend and/or concluded ETPs while in prison. Individuals under conditional release who attended ETPs tend to evaluate these positively, especially to what concerns the ability to improve their skills and knowledge. 
Among those who attended and/or concluded ETPs, a considerable number, who were employed before imprisonment are still working after release, and more than half of those who were unemployed before imprisonment were professionally integrated during their conditional release. These results suggest that more individuals improve and acquire professional competencies while in prison than lose them as a consequence of incarceration.
For those experiencing conditional release, other factors than ETPs, such as professional status prior to incarceration and younger age, seem to drive professional integration. This means that younger individuals with more prior professional competencies also are more likely to find a job after release. 
However, working while serving time, attending ETPs, and being out of prison for longer whilst in conditional release are also marginally related to professional integration since these factors allow the acquisition of competencies and sufficient time to find a job.
In short, the absence of differences between those who attended and/or concluded ETPs and those who did not, begs the question of ETPs’ suitability for the post-release labor market. However, some individuals who attended and/or concluded ETPs seem to benefit from it, in conjunction with other pre-prison, prison and after release factors. Notwithstanding, while attending ETPs seems to help improve individuals' skills and knowledge, especially among those with a worse social integration before imprisonment, a detailed analysis and reflection on the potential improvements of ETPs to better match the community labor market should be performed. 

Mind the Gap has its limitations. For one, self-reported data is restricted and might be influenced by social desirability, among other intentionally or unintentionally biased factors. The cross-sectional nature of the study is also a limitation, caution is therefore required when interpreting the results. Furthermore, because changes are predicted throughout the incarceration experience, future longitudinal research (or cohort sample) may allow us to better understand the significance of psychosocial and context characteristics that might have an influence on ETPs attendance. 
Differences between sex and age groups should be taken into account given the age range of the sample, especially on what concerns motives to attend ETPs. The study of learning and human development tends to highlight age-related changes in cognitive skills and motivation that affect how people learn throughout life and, therefore, might impact the relationship between attending and/or concluding ETPs and social reintegration after release. More specifically, learning processes tend to change throughout life related to cognitive development and motivational correlates, which should be explored in future studies. 
It is also important to mention that other factors might impact individuals' reintegration into society, such as personality features, psychological health, social support, etc. Thus, future studies should include other variables (such as cognitive abilities) in order to better understand the reintegration process after serving time in prison.

https://dgrsp.justica.gov.pt/Estat%C3%ADsticas-e-indicadores

Manger, T., Hetland, J., Jones, L. O., Eikeland, O. J., & Asbjornsen, A. E. (2020). Prisoners’ academic motivation, viewed from the perspective of self-determination theory: Evidence from a population of Norwegian prisoners. International Review of Education, 66, 551-574. 

https://www.pordata.pt/portugal/reclusos+total+e+por+nivel+de+instrucao+completo-273

Manger, T., Eikeland, O., & Asbjornsen, A. (2013). Effects of educational motives on prisoners’ participation in education and educational desires. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 19, 245-257. 

Mukeredzi, T. G. (2021). Why prisoners pursue adult education and training: Perceptions of prison instructors. Journal of Vocational, Adult and Continuing Education and Training, 4(1), 88-105.