What are the impacts of college-in-prison, both inside facilities and in the community?
By Neal Palmer, Research Project Director
Findings from a final outcome evaluation of the College-in-Prison Reentry Initiative demonstrate potential benefits to the prison environment but indeterminate associations with reconviction and employment following release.
Higher education provides a vehicle for learning new information and concepts, developing valuable skills, and opening doors to opportunity. It can also be transformative in helping students build self-esteem, the ability to handle change, and interpersonal and communication skills. For people who are incarcerated, these benefits can facilitate more successful reentry back into the community. But, historically, avenues to postsecondary education in college have been limited.
Even though one study found that nearly 70 percent¹ of incarcerated individuals are interested in pursuing post-secondary education during their time in prison, only 9 percent of people who are incarcerated complete a credential while incarcerated. In addition to a general lack of funding in this area, restrictions on federal and state funding for people who are incarcerated have denied access to post-secondary education in prison.To help understand and address the demand for education for people who are incarcerated, CUNY ISLG and the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office—through their Criminal Justice Investment Initiative (CJII)—launched the College-in-Prison Reentry Initiative (CIP) to expand access to postsecondary programs across New York State prisons in 2017. From its inception through 2022, 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. And now, with the reinstatement of federal Pell Grant funding and Tuition Assistance Program (TAP) eligibility in New York State for people who are incarcerated, it also sought to document the best practices for implementing these programs now that funding is more widely available to do so.
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.
CUNY ISLG managed the Initiative and evaluated its implementation, finding that CIP addressed many of the systemic barriers students face in earning degrees and reentering the community. This included developing solutions related to differing degree standards across providers, challenges with credit transfers, and barriers to finishing degrees in colleges in the community after release.
Researchers at Vera Institute of Justice and NYU conducted a concurrent outcome evaluation of CIP to assess the benefits of college-in-prison participation for NYS students who were enrolled in the expanded programming across the state. The initial findings of this evaluation were shared in Vera’s interim report, and updated findings are explored in a final evaluation report.
By the Numbers: Outcome of CIP Students Compared to Similar Non-Students
After adjusting for compositional differences between participating students and a comparison group of non-students, the evaluation assessed the impact of participation in associate and bachelor degree programs in prisons on: in-facility behavior (i.e., misconduct incidents), reconviction, employment, and income after release. Key findings of the final outcome evaluation report include:
In-facility Misconducts
Consistent with prior research, CIP students had statistically fewer substantiated disciplinary incidents compared to non-students at 6, 12, and 24 months following enrollment. For instance, at 6 months, students had around half as many substantiated misconducts compared to non-students. Students also had fewer substantiated violent misconducts at 12 months compared to similar non-students.
CIP students had statistically fewer substantiated disciplinary incidents compared to non-students at 6, 12, and 24 months following enrollment.
Reconviction
Participation in CIP was not associated with a meaningful difference in the probability of reconviction following release. Although CIP students had lower odds of reconviction at 6 months following release, this difference was not statistically significant; these odds were reversed in subsequent time periods, where they were also statistically insignificant. These findings diverge from most prior research, which has found reduced odds of reconviction and reincarceration for formerly incarcerated college students compared to non-students. It is worth noting that reconviction was quite low in general across both students and non-students during the observation window, making it more difficult to discern any possible differences.
Employment and wages
Students had a 35 percent lower probability of finding employment within the first year following release. They also reported lower wages in the first six months following release, but this difference was not significant at 12 months and was essentially null at 18 months. One possible explanation for these findings is that former CIP students may have continued their studies after release and may not have been seeking to join the workforce—in ISLG’s final process evaluation report, an overwhelming majority of incarcerated students planned to continue their studies following release. Formerly incarcerated students may also have taken longer to find employment in their desired fields, or have been self-employed, as some research has found higher rates of entrepreneurship among those enrolling in postsecondary education. Unfortunately, the outcome evaluation was not able to account for these possibilities. However, despite the lower odds of employment, the similar reported average earnings among CIP students at 12 months and beyond may indicate that when they are employed, they earn more than comparable non-students.
The Future of Education for People who are Incarcerated
While these analyses provide helpful insights around the impact of increased access to education for those who are incarcerated in New York, many other questions require further inquiry. For instance, getting more granular data around post-release college reenrollment for former CIP students could help illuminate how CIP affects the job seeking process. While much about the federal funding landscape is uncertain, the reinstatement of TAP and Pell Grant funding for people who are incarcerated is a promising step towards continued and growing access to education.
More granular data around post-release college reenrollment for former CIP students could help illuminate how CIP affects the job seeking process.
For more, see the full report: The Impacts of College-in-Prison Participation on Safety and Employment in New York State: A Final Analysis of College Students Funded by the College-in-Prison Reentry Initiative. See CUNY ISLG’s process evaluation here. For reports exploring the Goals & Achievements and Lessons Learned for Expansion of CIP, see the Smart Investment for New York series.
About the Criminal Justice Investment Initiative
Under former Manhattan District Attorney Cy R. Vance, Jr., the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office created the Criminal Justice Investment Initiative (CJII) in order to use $250 million seized in international financial crime prosecutions to invest in transformative projects that will improve public safety, prevent crime, and promote a fair and efficient justice system. CJII is a first-of-its-kind effort to support innovative community projects that fill critical gaps and needs in New York City’s criminal legal system infrastructure.
CJII focuses on three investment areas—crime prevention, diversion and reentry, and supports for survivors of crime. The CUNY Institute for State & Local Governance manages and provides technical assistance to CJII contractors, and conducts oversight and performance measurement throughout the lifetime of the initiative.
Photo by gamespirit on Adobe Stock.
¹ Delaney and Smith, Understanding Educational Aspiration, 2019, 21; Rampey, Keiper, Mohadjer, et al., Highlights from the U.S. PIAAC Survey, 2016, 5, 27.