Higher Education Behind Bars: Postsecondary Prison Education Programs Make a Difference

Earlier this year, President Bush signed into law the Second Chance Act of 2007. The purpose of the bill is to assist ex-offenders in starting "new lives" by providing education in prison and other support services upon re-entering society. While the value of education has been well documented for improving the income levels and overall well-being of the general population, the benefits of higher education for inmates are even more dramatic.

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, at least 95 percent of all state prisoners will be released from prison at some point (U.S. Department of Justice, 2003). Most are young minority men with low incomes and educational attainment prior to being incarcerated. Over half will return to prison within three years (Langan & Levin, 2002).

Yet, for ex-offenders who obtain postsecondary education in prison the recidivism rates differ markedly. Studies suggest that prisoners who participate in higher education demonstrate much lower recidivism than those that do not. For example, one longitudinal analysis of 3,000 ex-offenders found that those who participated in prison education programs were 29 percent less likely to return to prison (Steurer, Smith, & Tracy, 2001). Max Kenner, director of the Bard Prison Initiative (BPI) in New York, agrees on the value of higher education in prison for reducing recidivism rates, saying, "Those who participate in higher education in prison are less likely to go back and less likely to fail in the workplace." Kenner oversees one of only a handful of higher education programs for inmates still operating after the congressional elimination of Pell Grants to prisoners in 1994. As a result, most incarcerated students cannot afford to participate in higher learning programs in prison. As Kenner recalls, "There were radical changes [after Pell Grant withdrawals] from something to nothing."

And yet, despite the loss of Pell Grants for prisoners, prison education programs are on the rise. A 2005 report by the Institute for Higher Education Policy (IHEP) highlighted an upward trend in the number of state prison systems offering at least some postsecondary education from 30 in 2002 to 43 in 2003–04. Fifteen of these systems accounted for a surprising 89 percent of all incarcerated students enrolled in higher education. In Texas and North Carolina, as well as the Federal Bureau of Prisons, more than 10 percent of the total inmate population participates in postsecondary education.

Higher education institutions in these and other states are finding opportunities to reach out to prisoners through partnerships with state and community-based organizations and resourceful funding strategies. At the same time, they are fulfilling their institutional missions to provide access to higher learning for underserved and underrepresented groups for the greater public good.

Centralized state-supported models of postsecondary prison education offer one way to structure higher education in prison with positive outcomes. In North Carolina, a partnership between the state Department of Corrections (DOC) and the North Carolina Community College System (NCCS) has been successful in providing postsecondary correctional education (PSCE) to one-third of the state's inmates each year. Among the program mandates are parity of course quality for inmates and non-incarcerated students, and coordinated administrative processes between the DOC and NCCS regarding course program and approval. Comprehensive articulation agreements between NCCS and the University of North Carolina System provide qualifying inmates with a pathway to a college degree upon release. In California, a state with one of the highest enrollments of prisoners participating in higher education, community college/prison partnerships are occurring between the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and the California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office.

Decentralized postsecondary prison education models are coordinated institution by institution and as a result, generally have greater difficulty establishing inter-institutional articulation agreements and partnerships without state support. However, higher education institutions have responded creatively in the absence of state funding by forming consortiums such as the Correctional Higher Education Consortium in Minnesota. The consortium provides instruction at two state prisons with private funding from the Minnesota Correctional Education Foundation.

Of paramount importance in sustaining prison higher education programs is strong institutional commitment to serving the prison population. For example, the Boston University Prison Education Program (BU PEP) begun in 1972 is still in operation today—due to the institution's dedication to achieving its outreach mission, says Robert Cadigan, BU professor and PEP director. PEP is primarily funded by the university and private contributions. More than money, though, Cadigan cites the priority of the institution to educate prisoners as a primary factor in its longevity. He says, "There was and still is a strong commitment from within the university toward serving the local community."

The university further extends its outreach to the prison community through a close partnership with Partakers, a faith-based, nonprofit organization that operates the College Behind Bars Program (CBBP). College Behind Bars provides mentoring, GED® test preparation, entrance exam preparation for the BU PEP, and correspondence courses for prisoners serving short-term sentences. Lanny Kutakoff, director of College Behind Bars, attributes the effectiveness of CBBP to the strong commitment of the faculty, or "academic mentors" as they are called, to help incarcerated students enroll in and complete the rigorous PEP curriculum. Says Kutakoff, "We discovered [that] having this kind of relationship profoundly impacts students' grades and retention rates. They are far better for Partakers students [than those who have not been mentored]."

Postsecondary prison education can benefit incarcerated students, their families, and society at large by reducing recidivism and crime rates; improving the self-perception, attitudes, and actions of ex-offenders; and enabling their full engagement in civic life. Communities realize fiscal benefits from providing higher education to prisoners, too: The costs of housing an offender are eliminated for every former inmate who remains outside the prison walls (IHEP 2005).

But federal and state policies have a long way to go to expand access to higher education for more prisoners. Higher education institutions across the nation must grapple with state legislation and public views that can be less than supportive of inmates' participation in higher learning. As Kutakoff notes, "This is not the most popular message in the world . . . to tell people that you are giving baccalaureate degrees to prisoners. Their response is usually 'for free?'" Informing the public about the benefits of higher education for prisoners is key for providing more educational opportunities "inside the walls." In Kutakoff's experience, "When you start talking to people about recidivism rates of 0 to 10 percent for college-educated ex-offenders, relieving the cost burden to taxpayers when they do not return to prison, and improving public safety when they do not return to crime, it changes things exponentially."

Increasing public awareness and advocacy and securing public and private funding for postsecondary prison education programs are challenges facing higher education institutions in prisons. As for now, legislation such as the Second Chance Act of 2007 holds promise for re-envisioning postsecondary prison education programs as essential pathways to a successful re-entry into society for ex-offenders. Says Kenner, "Prisoners are whole dignified people with complex issues that should be treated with respect." Combining prison higher education programs with other support services is in Kenner's opinion, "a step in the right direction and a sign that we are one step beyond just being 'tough on crime.'"

—Minatiya Dawkins & Erin McAuliff

Please direct questions about this page to:
CenterPointEditor@ace.nche.edu
This page last updated on 10/14/2008