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.
Introduction
The Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) was implemented to address sexual assault and sexual harassment within correctional facilities by establishing a set of standards that delineate institutional measures for prevention and response to prison rape (“Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003”). Signed into law in 2003, PREA advocates for zero-tolerance of sexual assault through enforcement of comprehensive mandates including educational and training programs for both inmates and staff (Jenness & Smyth, 2011). The Prison Rape Elimination Act included requirements for data collection, training initiatives, allocation of federal funds, and creation of the National Prison Rape Elimination Commission.
For PREA to be effective, acceptance from officers, inmates, and prison administration is critical. Successful implementation has been hindered by attitudinal barriers from both inmates and staff. Utilizing staff survey data across six institutions, Rudes et al. (2021, p. 242) determined correctional staff did not perceive PREA as beneficial, and instead viewed its implementation as an “administrative, safety, and cultural burden.” Similarly, Smith et al. (2023), in their examination of staff and inmate perceptions and knowledge regarding PREA, emphasized successful implementation relied on the support and understanding of staff and inmates, noting if “either does not comprehend accurately this policy and/or express little to no support for it, this can severely hamper efforts to abolish acts of sexual harassment and/or assault within corrections” (p. 6). Survey data from staff and inmates revealed that while most staff and inmates had knowledge about and support for PREA, there were notable discrepancies in certain areas including mandatory reporting procedures and staff/inmate relationships. Additionally, they noted a divergence in the perceived level of support for PREA policy (Smith et al., 2023).
In accordance with PREA standards, correctional agencies are obligated to ensure meaningful access to all PREA-related information. Notably, PREA standard 115.16, specifically addresses individuals with disabilities and mandates written materials be provided in a format that facilitates effective communication. Various strategies have been employed to deliver PREA information to inmates including policy, handbooks, handouts, signage, and brochures. Additionally, printed materials are offered to inmates as supplementary resources during in-person training sessions that expound upon the provisions of PREA (Harrell et al., 2015). Emphasizing the importance of written communication, PREA compliance audits incorporate multiple checkboxes to verify the inclusion of PREA language and information in inmate handbooks, posters, and other printed materials (Bureau of Justice Assistance, 2014). These checkboxes underscore the importance placed upon integrating written information as a fundamental tenet of comprehensive PREA implementation.
Highlighting the significance of presenting PREA information and resources in a language inmates comprehend, Hastings and Brickman (2020) suggest providing meaningful access minimizes the risk of harm to inmates. They further contend providing such access has the potential to enhance compliance with rules and regulations while reducing misunderstandings among inmates. The risk of harm would be further mitigated if PREA messages were conveyed at a readability level corresponding to the inmates’ cognitive ability. Simply providing information in a familiar language is not sufficient to gauge inmate comprehension and understanding. More importantly, factors such as educational background and overall literacy levels are likely to have a substantial influence on one's ability to grasp PREA information.
In the United States, literacy levels are relatively low, with recent work suggesting half of all adults read at or below a 6th-grade level (Rothwell, 2020). When compared to the general population, inmates demonstrate considerably lower literacy levels, commensurate with 4th–5th-grade reading equivalency (Burek & Liederbach, 2021; Shippen et al., 2010).
The readability of PREA information plays a critical role in ensuring the effectiveness of the protections and harm reduction measures provided by PREA. However, a concerning gap exists in PREA compliance when institutions demonstrate adherence by checking boxes for the presence of informational content, without a corresponding checkbox to assess the readability of that content. This raises doubts about whether the regulations, as currently formulated, are realistically attainable by the prison population. While some work has explored language and access plans for individuals with disabilities and limited English proficiency (see Hastings & Brickman, 2020), it appears assurances of appropriate access for all have been overlooked. Similarly, many studies have examined the issue of policy adherence by correctional agencies (see Malkin & DeJong, 2019 for a recent example). Yet, to date, no studies have assessed whether prison policies are written at a literacy level suitable to inmates or staff. PREA policies and the protections they afford are of questionable value if incarcerees cannot read them, and some institutional staff responsible for implementation are similarly challenged. Therefore, a need exists for research that evaluates the readability of correctional policy materials like PREA toward creating opportunities to improve and achieve best practices.
A Brief Review of the Literature
Literacy/Readability in the Population
According to recent data provided by the U.S. Department of Education, over 50% of adults in the United States exhibit inadequate literacy skills, reading at or below the 6th-grade level (Rothwell, 2020). Hanish et al. (2022) similarly note approximately 21% of U.S. adults read at, or below a 5th-grade level, while an additional 30% read at a level between 6th and 8th grade. Readability, in the context of written materials, refers to the ease with which individuals can read and comprehend content (Gray et al., 2019). Predictors of readability encompass both the complexity of the document itself and the educational background of the reader.
To assess adult literacy, numeracy, and problem-solving skills, the Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC) uses a five-level measurement system, with data collected from over 40 countries. Current PIAAC results indicate that 1 in 5 (20%) adults have a literacy proficiency at or below Level 1, indicating significant challenges in their ability to effectively utilize and comprehend print materials (Rampey et al., 2016).
Readability formulas are used to assess, target, and successfully meet appropriate reading levels in a wide variety of fields, including education, publishing and media, the military, and healthcare (Wang et al., 2013). Validated readability tools have been developed to provide standardized measurements (Worrall et al., 2020). To meet the needs of the general population, guidelines suggest targeting a reading level equivalent to 6th–8th grade, while more inclusive guidelines propose a target readability range of 4th–6th grade (Wang et al., 2013). Recommendations for readability are particularly critical when the information being conveyed holds significant utility and requires immediate action. For instance, The American Medical Association recommends healthcare materials be written at or below the 6th-grade level (Weiss, 2003).
An alternative approach for assessing readability involves the categorization of reading levels based on proficiency. Existing literature supports a three-level classification: independent reading level, instructional reading level, and frustration reading level. At the independent level, individuals are capable of reading with 99% accuracy in word recognition and comprehending at least 90% of the material. The instructional level denotes a comprehension threshold of at least 75% of the material and a word comprehension rate of 95%. At this level, individuals can grasp the content with the assistance of an instructor. On the other hand, the frustration reading level indicates a word comprehension of 90% or less and content comprehension of less than 50% (Betts, 1946). To comprehend the material, this reader would require substantial educational support. The frustration reading level occurs when the grade level of the material surpasses the individual's reading level by two academic years (Kahn et al., 2006).
Inmate Literacy and Readability
Prior work consistently demonstrates that incarcerated individuals exhibit significantly lower education and literacy levels than the general population (Rampey et al., 2016). The most recent statistics from the National Assessment of Adult Literacy indicate 56% of incarcerated adults function at basic or below basic reading levels, falling well below the standards of proficiency set by the Institute of Education Sciences (Owens-Murphy, 2022). Similarly, the PIAAC reveals that 30% of inmates have an education level below high school, in contrast to 14% of the general population (Rampey et al., 2016). When evaluating literacy skills, incarcerated individuals achieve significantly lower scores, with 29% of inmates classified at level 2, compared to just 19% of the general population at level 2 (Rampey et al., 2016).
The more comprehensive 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy Survey found both male and female prisoners, across all age groups, reported lower average scores in prose, document, and quantitative literacy when compared to individuals living in nonincarcerated households (Greenberg et al., 2007). Examining the readability of a social climate survey instrument used in an Ohio prison study, Burek and Liederbach (2021), discovered that although the survey was written at a 7th-grade level, inmate responses to open-ended questions exhibited an average writing level equivalent to the 4th grade. Similarly, Shippen et al. (2010) investigated individuals in an Alabama prison and reported inmates under the age of 24 had a reading equivalency ranging from the beginning to the middle of the 5th grade in all areas explored.
Readability in Criminal Justice
The assessment of readability in the field of criminal justice is limited. Although there has been some investigation into the readability of Miranda warnings within the legal domain, the extent of research in this area remains minimal. Studies conducted by Greenfield et al. (2001), and Kahn et al. (2006), indicate a considerable portion of the population is unlikely to fully comprehend the text of Miranda warnings due to its level of readability. Helms (2003) concluded a 6th-grade level may be too high for the average offender to understand, comprehend, or appreciate the content. Moreover, Kahn et al. (2006) observed approximately 20% of analyzed Miranda warnings were potentially written at a level more than two grades above the reading proficiency of the offenders, placing individuals at a frustration level of reading. As a result, the comprehension of Miranda warnings/rights becomes highly questionable, significantly affecting a defendant's ability to competently waive their rights.
In the context of jury instructions, Small et al. (2013) conducted a study that highlighted an inconsistency between the language used in capital cases and the average adult reading level. This incongruity suggests jurors may lack the necessary comprehension skills to effectively understand and integrate the intricate language contained within jury instructions (p. 21). Additionally, researchers also noted reading comprehension surpasses listening comprehension beyond the 6th-grade level. Consequently, jurors are likely to encounter even greater difficulties with listening comprehension, compounding the challenges already posed by their limited reading comprehension abilities.
Readability in Corrections
Over four decades ago, Archambeault and Archambeault (1983, p. 18) described the dearth of literature investigating the issues of readability and comprehension of written organizational policy, specifically noting, “management of any criminal justice organization has a readability problem when its organizational communication is written on a level which is either too high or too low for its intended employee audience.” They emphasized that when policies and procedures of an organization are written at a 13–14th-grade reading level, but the employee audience reads at an 8–10th-grade level, management loses its ability to effectively communicate with its employees. While most states require a high school diploma or GED for employment in correctional institutions, some states have additional requirements including college coursework; however, prior law enforcement or military experience can often be substituted (Kowalski, 2020). Consequently, a significant portion of employees may encounter challenges in communication and readability if workplace messages are presented at levels that exceed their educational requirements.
For correctional institutions to function in a safe and orderly manner, clear communication is essential. Both inmates and staff must be able to read, understand, interpret, and implement institutional guidelines, policies, and procedures, including those related to PREA. Unclear communication can directly impact the safety and security of an institution. Unfortunately, few studies have examined the readability of correctional communications or policies. Dillon and Colling (2010) conducted an examination of a therapeutic handbook in a women's prison in Montana revealing that to fully comprehend the inmate handbook, an inmate would need to have completed high school and some college education. More recently, Krienert et al. (2023) assessed the readability levels of inmate handbooks. They empirically explored 74 handbooks across 49 states and discovered none of the handbooks scored below an 8th-grade reading level, with the average handbook requiring a reading level equivalent to 11th grade. Even when considering a more conservative 6th-grade reading target, the average inmate handbook still exceeds the average inmate's reading level by five grades, making it highly unlikely that inmates can effectively interpret the document for their own benefit or that of the institution.
Readability and PREA
The Prison Rape Elimination Act mandates the collection of data on the incidence and prevalence of sexual assault in correctional facilities. To fulfill this requirement, the National Inmate Survey (NIS) collects data directly from inmates. To obtain approval for conducting research involving prisoners, an Institutional Review Board requires information to be presented in a manner that is understandable to the incarcerated population. To ensure the appropriateness of consent materials, the NIS project team consulted with an adult literacy organization. Recommendations included, “dividing the text into clear topical areas so the inmate would more easily be able to identify the intent of each paragraph,” and using “short, more common words whenever possible” (Caspar, n.d., p. 5). During the informed consent process, interviewers noted multiple literacy challenges, for example, inmates were consistently not familiar with the word “explicit” (Caspar, n.d., p. 9). Caspar (n.d.) noted the difficulty of creating a document that is understandable to individuals with lower literacy levels and less formal education than the general population.
Harrell et al. (2015) advocate for the adoption of a 5th-grade reading level as a benchmark for all written communication related to PREA. They emphasize the importance of utilizing plain language and a concise writing style that avoids “verbose language and jargon” (Harrell et al., 2015, p. 20). However, in Smith's (2020) documentation of a “Lessons Learned” approach to PREA implementation and compliance, there is no mention or reference to any assessment or evaluation of the readability of training materials, policy, or educational materials provided to inmates or staff. Existing literature on PREA implementation does not appear to have tested whether any of the created materials met standard reading/comprehension levels or even the recommended target reading levels. Without such standards in place, although PREA materials may exist, they do not effectively meet the required guidelines.
Method
The present study employed a mixed-methods approach. Between January and April 2023, investigators accessed PREA policy from state Department of Corrections (DOC) websites. In cases where multiple policies existed (e.g., when states separated PREA definitions, reporting, and investigation into distinct policies), all relevant documents were collected and combined into a single PREA policy document. To ensure comprehensive coverage of mandated PREA requirements, PREA audits were cross-referenced when policies were not specifically labeled as PREA. As a result, a comprehensive collection of PREA policies representing 46 states was obtained. In instances where states did not publicly post their policies, requests under the Public Information/Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) were submitted to obtain the current DOC PREA policy. This approach yielded a total sample of PREA policies from 48 states.1,2
Data collection for inmate handbooks followed a similar process. The collection period commenced in September 2022, with an initial search conducted on all 50 state DOC websites. The initial search yielded 10 gender-neutral handbooks, 4 male handbooks, and 4 female handbooks. Subsequently, requests were made via institutional email, resulting in the acquisition of an additional 5 gender-neutral handbooks, 12 male handbooks, and 12 female handbooks. To ensure comprehensive coverage, FOIA requests were submitted to the remaining 20 states. These requests led to an additional 8 gender-neutral handbooks, 9 male handbooks, and 10 female handbooks. In total, the sample consisted of 23 gender-neutral handbooks, 25 male handbooks, and 26 female handbooks. Thus, a comprehensive sample of 74 inmate handbooks from 49 out of 50 states was assembled.
To focus on the relevant narratives, PREA-related sections were identified and extracted from each collected handbook, whenever feasible. However, 12 handbooks did not contain any PREA policy or sections related to PREA. As a result, a total of 62 PREA-related handbook sections were available for analysis.
Finally, informational PREA brochures/handouts were collected in March 2023. In 25 states, brochures were publicly available on DOC websites. Five states sent brochures after requests were made to institutional email accounts. In an additional 11 states, brochures were retrieved through FOIA requests. Collection ultimately resulted in the retrieval of brochures/handouts from 41 states.
All DOC documents were individually converted from .pdf files to Microsoft Word documents and thoroughly examined to identify conversion errors. Only errors resulting from the conversion process were fixed; all original typos and/or spelling errors were retained within the documents. To assess the readability of each of the three PREA messaging platforms (policy, handbook, and brochure), two study authors conducted independent analyses using multiple measures including total page count, sentence length, word length, average syllables, percent of words three syllables or more, percent of difficult sentences (those with more than 22 words), and the percentage of passive sentences. Additionally, three standard readability scales/formulas were utilized to evaluate the reading difficulty/reading level of each document: the Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES), The Flesch–Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), and the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG).
Flesch Reading Ease Score
The FRES is one of the most widely used measures of readability (Flesch, 1948). Created in 1947, the FRES quantifies the ease at which written material can be read and understood on a scale from 1 to 100. Scores from 0–30 can be interpreted as very difficult to read, 30–50 represent difficult to read, 50–60 are considered fairly difficult to read, 60–70 represent a standard or average level of readability, 70–80 are fairly easy to read, 80–90 are easy, and 90–100 are very easy to read (Szmuda et al., 2020). To meet the needs of the general US population, scores between 60 and 70 are recommended (Worrall et al., 2020).
Flesch–Kincaid Grade Level
The FKGL calculates a numeric score corresponding to the education-grade level required for document comprehension. For the general US population, a 7th–8th-grade reading level is the target reading metric. However, when creating informational content for those with lower literacy levels, 5th or 6th grade is more commonly recommended (Szmuda et al., 2020). Both the FLES and the FKGL are included in many standard word-processing applications, making them the most widely used measures of readability (Wang et al., 2013).
Simple Measure of Gobbledygook
In contrast to the Flesch Reading Ease and Flesch–Kincaid formulas, which may overestimate readability by targeting 75% comprehension, the SMOG index utilizes 100% expected comprehension and incorporates more recent reading/grade-level criteria (Wang et al., 2013). Widely regarded as the recommended method of measurement when evaluating written healthcare information, the SMOG index demonstrates the strongest overall measurement consistency (Wang et al., 2013). For the general US population, a SMOG score of 10 or lower is recommended (Worrall et al., 2020).
Using Microsoft Word, page count, word count, and percent of passive sentences, the FRES score, and FKGL were calculated for all PREA messaging. Next, Readability Studio software was employed to calculate the remaining metrics and the SMOG index. Handbooks were then imported into MAXQDA, a computer-assisted qualitative and mixed methods data software. A thematic coding approach was utilized in MAXQDA to measure the findability and accessibility of written PREA information in inmate handbooks.
Results
Prison Rape Elimination Act Accessibility in Inmate Handbooks
Handbooks were thematically coded to evaluate the ease of locating PREA information. Findability was assessed by examining whether a specifically labeled PREA section was included in the handbook and whether that section was listed in the handbook's table of contents. Twelve handbooks had no PREA or PREA-related sections. In the remaining 62 handbooks, 51 (82%) had sections that were specifically labeled as PREA. In handbooks with a table of contents (57 handbooks), 43 (75.4%) contained specifically identified PREA sections within their respective tables of contents.
Next, handbooks containing PREA or PREA-related sections were coded when descriptions were provided regarding the sources inmates should consult for additional information about PREA. Forty-three of the 62 handbooks (69.4%) referred inmates to external sources beyond the handbook to obtain information about PREA and PREA-related topics. The most frequently referenced referral areas included official PREA policy (32; 74.4%), educational materials such as videos, pamphlets, and orientation programs (24; 55.1%), and general recommendations to seek guidance from staff (7; 16.3%).
Policy
Inmate handbooks commonly cited policy as a supplementary reference for inmates to augment information provided within the handbook or as a recommended source for inmates seeking to acquire knowledge about various aspects of PREA (e.g., reporting, definitions, and basic procedures). Some handbooks explicitly highlighted the responsibility of incarcerees to familiarize themselves with official PREA policy. For instance, a male handbook included the following instruction, “Inmates are responsible for familiarizing themselves with DOC's orientation material on sexual abuse prevention and intervention and [Policy Number] [Policy Name], available for viewing through the [librarian].” Similarly, another male handbook described. “[DOC] has policies and procedures for addressing sexual abuse, sexual assault/rape, sexual harassment and sexual misconduct. For more information, you can access the [Regulation Name][regulation number] through the General Library.”
Some handbooks adopted a strategy of offering brief summaries or shortened descriptions of topics while directing inmates to the larger policy for more detailed information. For instance, a passage from a gender-neutral handbook stated, “You should review the definitions in policy [Policy Number] for complete information about what acts are addressed in each category.” Similarly, in a section of a female handbook discussing different categories of abuse, it was stated, “any behavior defined as sexual abuse, sexual contact, sexual harassment, sexual offense, or voyeurism in [policy number].” Instead of including definitions for each category, inmates were directed to consult the institutional policy for further clarification.
Educational Materials/Programming
Many handbooks referred inmates to orientation programs, or to handouts or pamphlets either provided to them directly during orientation/admission, or available in the library, or by requesting assistance from staff members. As one male inmate handbook described, “During both intake and your orientation, you will be given verbal and written information about preventing and reporting sexual abuse and sexual harassment.” Similarly, a gender-neutral handbook contained the following: A brochure entitled Sexual Abuse/Assault Prevention and Intervention is included in the orientation packet offenders receive when they are admitted. Read it to find out more about this. A PREA video will be shown in orientation, and an acknowledgment of receiving the educational component needs to be signed.
Staff
In other inmate handbooks instructions were provided to inmates, guiding them to seek assistance from staff members when needing information or clarification. For instance, a female handbook included the directive, “If you have any questions regarding staying safe, PREA or what sexual assault is, contact your Counselor.” Similarly, a gender-neutral section advised, “If you have any questions regarding PREA at your facility, please send a communication form to the facility PREA coordinator.”
Readability Metrics
An examination of readability metrics applied to policy, brochures, and handbook sections began with a comparison between the two independent coders, revealing no significant differences. As presented in Table 1, there was substantial variation in the length of written PREA instruction. When examining word count, policy sections exhibited the greatest length (M = 11,479) surpassing all other forms of communication, followed by handbook sections (M = 965), and brochures/handouts (M = 944). To assess word choice and sentence structure, multiple measures were employed, including average word length, average syllables per word, and the percentage of words with three syllables or more. Notably, PREA policies contained the longest words (M = 5.52), followed by handbook sections (M = 5.15), and brochures (M = 5.02). Prominent examples of lengthy words frequently encountered in written PREA content include unsubstantiated, promulgated, contemplated, and collaborating. The average syllables per word and the percentage of words three syllables or more were both highest in PREA policies (M = 1.96 and 29.49), followed by handbook sections (M = 1.83 and 24.33). In contrast, brochures exhibited the lowest averages for both syllables per word and the presence of three-plus syllable words (M = 1.78 and 22.75). Examples of common three-plus syllable words found across PREA messaging include vulnerabilities, implementation, fraternization, and incapacitated.
Average Readability Metrics.
To evaluate the overall complexity of sentences, metrics including sentence length, percentage of difficult sentences, and percentage of passive sentences were measured. As indicated in Table 1, PREA policies exhibited the highest values for average sentence length (M = 22.27), average percent of difficult sentences (M = 40.06), and average number of perceived difficult sentences (M = 33.87). Inmate handbooks displayed slightly lower values (M = 19.54, M = 29.90, M = 30.39), while brochures/handouts had the lowest values (M = 15.64, M = 17.90, M = 22.69) in the respective categories. Recommended sentence length typically falls between 10 and 15 words. An example of a lengthy (98-word) sentence extracted from a female handbook section follows: The objectives of this training are to ensure that offenders gain a working knowledge of what constitutes sexual misconduct; to discuss the PREA law and its impact on the safety and welfare of offenders, staff, and the general public; to ensure that offenders are knowledgeable regarding offender rights and the responsibilities that go along with those rights; to ensure that offenders clearly understand the limits of confidentiality for reporting, and the consequences of false reporting; to ensure that offenders know the primary resource accessibility for information and to learn how Department rules and regulations relate to the law.
To gauge the readability of PREA materials, three separate metrics were employed. The FLES revealed a range of 3.4–47.5 (M = 19.68) for policy, 6.30–61.90 (M = 35.57) for handbooks, and 18.90–80.40 (M = 44.55) for brochures. The FKGL demonstrated a range of 10.5–19.2 (M = 15.79) for policy, 7.20–18.2 (M = 12.88) for handbooks, and 4–16.6 (M = 10.77) for brochures. Finally, the SMOG index exhibited a range of 11.3–19.0 (M = 17.38) for policy, 11.3–19.0 (M = 17.38) for handbooks, and 8.6–17.7 (M = 13.73) for brochures.
As indicated in Table 2, the readability of PREA messaging exceeded the recommended reading level for the general population across all tested readability metrics. Recommended rates for the FRES in the general population are between 60 and 70. No state policies were written at a level suitable for the general population, as all policies scored below 50, with 97.9% scoring below 40. Three brochures exhibited readability within the range suitable for the general population, with 29 (70.7%) scoring below 50. Likewise, two handbook sections also fell within that range, while the majority of PREA sections in handbooks (90.3%) recorded scores below 50.
Readability Characteristics of PREA Messaging.
Note. FRES is scored on a scale of 0–100. Scores from 0–59.9 were coded as difficult, 60–69.9, average, and 70+ easy.
When examining the FKGL, recommended scores for the general population range from 7–8, with scores of 5–6 suggested for individuals with lower literacy levels. When assessing PREA policy, none of the policies were written below a 10th-grade reading level. A significant majority (95.8%) were written at a 12th-grade level or higher, with nearly half (45.8%) exceeding a 15th-grade reading level. When examining brochures, 8 (19.5%) met the targeted range of 8th-grade or below for the general population, while 8 (19.5%) scored above a 12th-grade level. Three handbook sections achieved a 7th–8th-grade reading level, with the majority of all sections (66.1%) scoring at or above a 12th-grade reading level.
The SMOG readability measure yielded similarly unsatisfactory outcomes. A score of 10 is recommended for the general population, however, no PREA policy achieved a score below 11, and the majority (87.5%) obtained a score of 16 or higher. For handbook sections, only one scored below an 11 (10.5), with the majority (87.1%) scoring a 13 or higher. Only one inmate brochure scored below an 11, while the majority (73.2%) achieved a score of 13 or higher.
Statistically significant differences were observed across all readability metrics when comparing different sources of PREA information. Table 3 illustrates the ANOVA results conducted on the three types of PREA communication. Policy documents exhibited the highest level of difficulty in terms of readability, followed by handbook sections, and finally, brochures.
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) Across Messaging Type.
*p ≤ .05.
Discussion
Correctional facilities disseminate essential PREA information to inmates (and staff) through multiple forms of written communication. However, a critical misalignment exists between written PREA information and the reading level of the inmate population it is intended to inform, serve, and protect, as well as the staff responsible for implementing PREA guidelines. The high literacy levels required to comprehend PREA materials surpass the educational attainment and reading proficiency of many inmates, begging the question of whether PREA messaging, as written, primarily serves as a bureaucratic mechanism for documentation, fulfilling legal obligations, conforming to compliance requirements, and securing funding. It is far less evident PREA materials, as written; provide effective information, prevention, detection, or response to sexual abuse of incarcerated individuals in confinement. Many states require inmates (and staff) to sign acknowledgment forms affirming they have received a copy of the policy and/or informational handouts. This highlights the significance of the provided information and further emphasizes the necessity for PREA materials to be written at an appropriate level of readability. Currently, almost without exception, this objective is not being met. Furthermore, PREA policy is written at a level that is likely at or above the recognized frustration reading level (see Kahn et al., 2006) for a significant number of correctional staff. A comprehensive review of PREA messaging across 49 states reveals excessively legalistic language, rendering it practically ineffective, and merely a means of administrative compliance.
To assist agencies in the implementation process of PREA standards, the PREA Resource Center was established in 2010. Among the materials in their Resource Library is a sample PREA Brochure Template (PREA Brochure: Template, 2016). Applying the three readability metrics employed in the present study to the brochure template reveals an FLES score of 49.4, an FKGL of 9.3, and an SMOG of 12.7. All three readability scores, when examining even the brochure template, exceed the recommended reading level for incarcerated individuals.
The complexity of PREA communication in inmate handbooks is highlighted when compared to overall inmate handbook readability. Krienert et al. (2023) found inmate handbooks contained an FRES of 43.39, an FKGL of 11.34, and an SMOG of 13.87. In contrast, PREA sections of inmate handbooks had an average FRES of 35.57, an FKGL of 12.88, and an SMOG score of 15.45. When isolating PREA documentation sections, all readability metrics are elevated suggesting a directionally higher level of reading ability is required.
Prior research has established individuals reach a frustration reading level when reading materials are two-grade levels above their actual reading level. Using a conservative general population reading target of an 8th-grade level, average written PREA content exceeds this benchmark by more than seven grades for policies, more than two grades for brochures, and more than four grades for handbooks. Considering the educational attainment and literacy among the incarcerated population, it is recommended materials be written at a readability level of 5th–6th grade. The current discrepancy between the readability of PREA messaging and the reading abilities of inmates is likely overwhelming, insurmountable, frustrating, and most concerningly, incomprehensible.
According to Rudes et al. (2021), staff misunderstandings can arise when policies and practices are interpreted based on individual perspectives and existing norms. To mitigate this issue, the use of clearly written policies at suitable reading levels could minimize the need for interpretation and enhance compliance. Similarly, Smith et al. (2023) identify the need to effectively communicate PREA policy, noting a lack of awareness could contribute to increased rates of unreported victimizations and improper enforcement.
In 1983, Archambeault and Archambeault emphasized the importance of clearly written policy as a fundamental principle of professional criminal justice administration, noting mastery-level comprehension is necessary to effectively translate policy into action. More than 40 years later, it is evident this objective has yet to be fully realized. Numerous articles throughout the literature espouse the importance of implementing policies to facilitate practices that have the potential to reduce sexual assaults in correctional facilities. For example, Moster and Jeglic (2009), in their sample of 60 wardens, revealed wardens perceive the adoption of institutional PREA policy as an effective tool for rape prevention. However, for these policies to have the desired impact, they must be written at a level of readability that aligns with the reading capabilities of the inmate audience. Without this alignment, the likelihood of achieving the desired outcome is low. The creation and dissemination of PREA information that is suitably readable will increase the probability of inmates seeking help and assistance in the event of victimization (Harrell et al., 2015).
Among the obstacles faced by prison reform initiatives are claims of significant financial expense and administrative burdens (Schuhmann & Wodahl, 2011). However, developing critical PREA information that is readable by the intended inmate audience can alleviate confusion, foster clarity, and is unlikely to impose additional financial or administrative strains; rather it may contribute to their reduction. Creating readable PREA content requires minimal resources as standard word processing software already offers readability metrics. Moreover, advances in AI capabilities, such as ChatGPT, present promising opportunities for the refinement of institutional policy to ensure accessibility without substantial direct financial or resource expense.
Hastings and Brickman (2020, p. 16) argue correctional facilities “…should review each policy and procedure created to implement language access to determine whether it results in information and services that are as effective as those provided to the native English-speaking population.” We propose a broader perspective. In the interest of promoting safety and security within correctional facilities, it is crucial for each facility to review every policy and procedure to ensure it is implemented in a manner that enables the average incarceree, irrespective of their language status, to read and fully comprehend. These findings underscore the need for further research to address the readability and comprehension challenges within correctional institutions. Efforts should be made to ensure communication materials, including policies and procedures, are presented in a manner that is accessible and understandable to the intended audience. By doing so, correctional institutions can enhance communication effectiveness, promote compliance, and contribute to the overall safety and security of the facility for inmates and staff.
Footnotes
Authors’ Note
The opinions expressed herein are solely the authors and do not reflect the opinions or official position of any other individuals or organizations.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Notes
Author Biographies
Dr.
Dr.