The College-in-Prison Reentry Initiative: Expanding Access to Degree Pathways and Post-Release Employment
By Pavithra Nagarajan, Senior Research Associate, and Neal Palmer, Research Project Director
Across New York State, the College-in-Prison (CIP) Reentry Initiative has helped expand access to higher education in state correctional facilities, enrolling over 900 incarcerated students from 2017 to 2022. CUNY ISLG researchers conducted a process evaluation of the Initiative and assessed its goals and achievements, including improved curriculum planning, transfer agreements between programs, and academic reentry supports for students to better support degree completion and successful reentry.
Racial and ethnic inequality is imbued in the American educational system due to a systematic disinvestment over the last 50 years in schools that primarily serve historically marginalized communities.[1] Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC)[2] and economically disadvantaged communities are overrepresented in prisons, including those in New York State (NYS), as these communities have historically been over-policed[3] and under-resourced with respect to education and schooling. When compared to the general population, formerly incarcerated individuals are nearly twice as likely to have no high school credentials and eight times less likely to have completed college, reflecting the role of educational disadvantage in criminal legal system involvement.[4]
College-in-prison programs offer those who are incarcerated the chance to make up for the lack of prior educational opportunities. Taking advantage of these educational programs may even support their successful reentry: research has consistently demonstrated a relationship between correctional education and reduced recidivism[5], [6] as well as improved employment outcomes after release.[7] Analyses of prison education programs also demonstrate public safety cost savings due to this reduced recidivism. An analysis by RAND corporation found that every dollar spent on correctional education corresponds to four to five dollars in savings on reincarceration costs.[8] Even for those who have not yet been released, these programs foster a sense of community[9] and purpose[10] that can lead to safer prison environments.[11]
Research has consistently demonstrated a relationship between correctional education and reduced recidivism, as well as improved employment outcomes after release.
Not only is it beneficial, but there is demand for it. A 2014 survey of a nationally representative sample of incarcerated adults found that 70 percent reported interest in enrolling in an academic class or program, though only 6 percent of incarcerated adults had earned some type of postsecondary degree compared to 37 percent of the general population.[12] At the time of their incarceration, most people had incomes low enough to qualify for financial aid, and typically remain eligible while in prison. However, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 greatly curtailed this opportunity for incarcerated individuals over the past three decades. The Act led to a 26-year ban that prohibited incarcerated people from receiving federal and state financial aid to pursue a college education in correctional facilities.
This legislation revoked federal financial aid (known as Pell Grants) for incarcerated students.[13] Many states, including NYS, followed suit by making these students ineligible for equivalent state financial aid programs (e.g., Tuition Assistance Program, or TAP).[14] This dramatic reduction in funding led to an immediate drop in the number of programs: Within NYS, the total number of college-in-prison programs dropped from 25 to just four.[15] By early 2017, college programs in NYS prison facilities had been able to accommodate only four percent of incarcerated people with high school credentials, leaving long wait lists[16] of prospective students.
In response to this challenge, in 2017, the Criminal Justice Investment Initiative (CJII)[17] created the College-in-Prison Reentry Initiative (CIP) to expand access to postsecondary programs across NYS. CIP invested $7.3 million in postsecondary education in NYS correctional settings, ultimately serving 931 students through seven higher education institutions in 17 prisons statewide. CIP expanded access to college education for individuals in Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) facilities while addressing many of the systemic barriers students face in earning degrees and upon reentering the community. The CUNY Institute for State & Local Governance (CUNY ISLG) managed the initiative and also conducted a process evaluation of the Initiative.
CIP invested $7.3 million in postsecondary education in NYS correctional settings, ultimately serving 931 students through seven higher education institutions in 17 prisons statewide.
The five-year, mixed-methods process evaluation sought to document the implementation of CIP over time. This final report follows earlier policy briefs that highlighted key mid-evaluation findings (Goals & Achievements and Lessons Learned & Recommendations for Expansion). Overall, CUNY ISLG’s findings indicate that the Initiative was successful in increasing access to higher education in NYS prisons, and the findings further raise several important insights with regard to system-wide coordination, curricula alignment, and provision of reentry resources.
Expanding Access to Programming
CIP substantially expanded access to college education for individuals in DOCCS facilities while addressing many of the systemic barriers students face in both earning degrees reentering the community. Over the course of the Initiative, seven Education Providers (including two college Providers who previously had not offered college in prison) expanded college programs into four new correctional facilities, and provided college instruction in 17 total participating facilities across the state (Figure 1). CIP also expanded the number and types of degree programs available among CIP Providers in correctional facilities from 10 to 14, including four additional associate-level programs.
FIGURE 1. NEW YORK STATE CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES & PRESENCE OF CIP PROGRAMMING FROM 2017-2018
Collectively, these enhancements enabled Providers to offer more diverse degree paths and courses in additional program facilities to serve more students, which increased opportunities for degree completion prior to release. Of the 86 students known to have completed their degrees during the implementation period, the majority (91 percent; N=78) did so by the date they were released, at rates similar across racial/ethnic groups. In all, the Initiative served 931 students, and in so doing, helped increase DOCCS total (combined CIP and non-CIP) college enrollment capacity by approximately 35 percent since 2016, from 1,106 students to 1,493 as of 2022.[18]
FIGURE 2. TOTAL NUMBER OF CIP STUDENTS, BY SEMESTER (N=931)
Of the 931 CIP students, more than three-quarters (84 percent; N=780) newly enrolled during the Initiative. Students most commonly engaged in courses related to social science, literature, and writing mechanics. Although students appreciated the variety of class topics, they advocated for additional offerings, such as advanced mathematics and computer-based courses. Among all associate- and bachelor-level students, the average student had earned almost half (42 percent) of the total required credits for their degree paths while enrolled in their respective programs. Looking specifically at released associate of art (AA)/associate of science (AS) and bachelor of arts (BA)/bachelor of science (BS) students who had not yet completed their degrees, they had satisfied nearly half (45 percent) of their degree requirements on average. Aside from release, common reasons students exited their programs included facility transfers, voluntary dropouts, and disciplinary reasons.
Ensuring Instructional Quality, Alignment, and Transferability
Overall, students, Providers, and faculty found the college-in-prison curriculum and academic standards to be comparable to traditional programs in the community. Nearly all faculty noted the high quality of students’ work along with students’ drive to perform well, including higher levels of engagement compared to students on campus. CIP students also performed at high rates: average student GPAs consistently reached 3.0 or greater in each semester, with the exception of those that were principally disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic (i.e., Spring and Summer 2020) as programs pivoted to remote instruction. Every faculty member interviewed described feeling privileged to work with CIP students, whom they found on average to be more engaged in class, to be highly motivated, and to not take their education for granted, compared to traditional students on college campuses. One faculty member noted, “When I teach at the [non-prison] campus, I feel like it’s just another class for them, a stepping stone to something else. They’re happy to do the work, but [it] doesn’t register further than a grade. At [the prison facility], they are so invested; they are so hungry to learn and to get feedback and be exposed to new ideas.”
“When I teach at the [non-prison] campus, I feel like it’s just another class for them, a stepping stone to something else. They’re happy to do the work, but [it] doesn’t register further than a grade. At [the prison facility], they are so invested; they are so hungry to learn and to get feedback and be exposed to new ideas.”
- CIP Faculty
Several Providers and faculty, however, noted that students’ overall preparedness for college could be stronger, particularly with regard to writing skills, and additional supports (e.g., tutoring, remedial coursework) could help better prepare students for college-level instruction. As part of the Initiative, SUNY worked to align program curriculum standards as well as transfer and articulation agreements among five of the seven Providers to facilitate the transfer of comparable credits between academic institutions to advance degree progress and opportunities to complete during or after incarceration. Several challenges remain in facilitating degree progress, however; for example, Providers often struggled to obtain students’ former transcripts, which at times resulted in a student having to repeat a course they had already completed. SUNY also participated in the New York Consortium for Higher Education in Prison (NYCHEP), a coalition of higher education institutions and organizations that support college-in-prison programming.
Improving and Expanding Reentry
Incarcerated students experience significant barriers to employment, education, and other basic needs after their release. For example, reentry resources are not equitably distributed across the state; many Providers and students noted these resources are concentrated in downstate regions like New York City and less so upstate. Although DOCCS staff typically provide reentry planning and resources, Providers are well positioned to offer additional support, particularly with regard to re-enrollment in college. The Institute for Justice and Opportunity worked with Providers to incorporate reentry resource tools, including a series of workshops, written guides, and individually tailored academic reentry plans. Re-enrollment post-release, however, remains low among those who are released without degrees; Providers could affirmatively report reenrollment within six months post-release for only 10 percent of these students.[19] That said, it is worth considering that students have several practical needs that need to be met when returning home, such as food security, employment, and safe housing, which may take precedence over re-enrollment.
FIGURE 3. PERCEIVED OBSTACLES TO REENROLLMENT IN COLLEGE AS REPORTED IN THE STUDENT SURVEY (N=114)
For more, see the report and the accompanying executive summary. Also refer to the Vera Institute’s interim outcome evaluation report here, which finds a 66 percent reduction in reconviction among CIP students compared to their peers.
[1] Rothstein, R. (2015). The racial achievement gap, segregated schools, and segregated neighborhoods: A constitutional insult. Race and Social Problems, 7(1), 21–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12552-014-9134-1.
[2] Black, Indigenous, (and) People of Color.
[3] New York Civil Liberties Union. (n.d.). Stop and Frisk Data. Retrieved March 22, 2023 from: https://www.nyclu.org/en/stop-and-Frisk-data. A federal judge also concluded that the program operated with discriminatory intent. See Floyd v. City of New York, 959 F. Supp. 2d 540, 661 (S.D.N.Y. 2013).
[4] Couloute, L. (2018, October). Getting Back on Course: Educational exclusion and attainment among formerly incarcerated people. Prison Policy Initiative. Retrieved from https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/education.html.
[5] Davis, L. M., Steele, J. L., Bozick, R., Williams, M. V., Turner, S., Miles, J. N., & Steinberg, P. S. (2014). How effective is correctional education, and where do we go from here? The results of a comprehensive evaluation. Rand Corporation.
[6] Recidivism was defined across studies as reoffending, rearrest, reconviction, reincarceration, technical parole violation, and successful completion of parole. In the pool of 50 studies that Rand analyzed which had recidivism outcomes, the majority used reincarceration as the outcome measure (n = 34). See: Rand Corporation. (n.d.) Correctional Education: Policy Impact. Retrieved from https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR564.html
[7] Tewksbury, R., Erickson, D. J., & Taylor, J. M. (2008). Opportunities lost: The consequences of eliminating Pell Grant eligibility for correctional education students. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 31(1–2), 43-56. https://doi.org/10.1300/J076v31n01_02.
[8] Public policy impacts of RAND’s correctional education research. (n.d.). RAND Corporation. Retrieved June 5, 2021, from https://www.rand.org/well-being/justice-policy/portfolios/correctional-education/policy-impact.html.
[9] Hobby, L., Walsh, B., & Delaney, R. (2019). A piece of the puzzle: State financial aid for incarcerated students. Vera Institute of Justice. Retrieved from https://www.vera.org/downloads/publications/a-piece-of-the-puzzle.pdf.
[10] Evans, D. N., Pelletier, E., & Szkola, J. (2018). Education in prison and the self-stigma: empowerment continuum. Crime & Delinquency, 64(2), 255–280. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128717714973
[11] Pompoco, A., Wooldredge, J., Lugo, M., Sullivan, C., & Latessa, E. J. (2017). Reducing inmate misconduct and prison returns with facility education programs. Criminology & Public Policy, 16(2), 515–547. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12290
[12] Rampey, B. D., Keiper, S., Mohadjer, L., Krenzke, T., Li, J., Thornton, N., & Hogan, J. (2016). Highlights from the U.S. PIAAC Survey of Incarcerated Adults: Their skills, work experience, education, and training. National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2016040.
[13] H.R.3355 - 103rd Congress (1993-1994): Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, (1994) (testimony of Jack B. Brooks). https://www.congress.gov/bill/103rd-congress/house-bill/3355
[14] Tewksbury, R., et al. (2008).
[15] Jacobs, A. & Bond, M. (2019). Mapping the landscape of higher education in New York State Prisons Prisoner Reentry Institute, John Jay College of Criminal Justice. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED594766.pdf
[16] Avey, H., et al. (2015).
[17] CJII was made possible through a partnership between Governor Andrew Cuomo, the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office, the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS), and the CUNY Institute for State and Local Governance (CUNY ISLG).
[18] Department of Corrections and Community Supervision. (n.d.). College Programs. https://doccs.ny.gov/college-programs; At the time of reporting, eight of the 52 DOCCS facilities that were open in Fall 2017 have since closed.
[19] This is a conservative estimate due to missing data from Providers on former CIP students who have since been released.
Photo by smolaw11 on Adobe Stock.