LEARNING
to Reduce Recidivism
A 50-state analysis of postsecondary correctional education policy

Wendy Erisman
Jeanne Bayer Contardo

THE INSTITUTE FOR HIGHER EDUCATION POLICY
November 2005

ii

Learning to Reduce Recidivism

Acknowledgements

W

e would like to thank those members of the staff at the Institute for Higher Education
Policy who helped make this report possible: Jamie Merisotis, President; Alisa
Cunningham, Director of Research; Loretta Hardge, Director of Communications;
and Yuliya Keselman, Research Analyst. In addition, Melissa Clinedinst, former Senior
Research Analyst, and Patricia Steele and Kimberli Keller, former Graduate Fellows, were
instrumental in developing the concept for this report and in assembling much of the
background material.
Particular thanks are owed to John Linton, U.S. Department of Education, for his
considerable advice and assistance throughout the course of our research. We also
appreciate the efforts of Gwynne Cunningham and Phyllis Wilbur,Virginia Department of
Correctional Education, who arranged for us to meet with a group of incarcerated men at
the Coffeewood Correctional Center for a discussion that opened our eyes to the realities
of attending college while in prison.
Our work benefited from the expertise and assistance of a number of people: Roger
Bowen, American Association of University Professors; Bob Evans, Windham School
District; Kathy Goebel, Washington State Board for Community and Technical Colleges;
Ray Harbert, Maryland State Department of Education; Ray Harrington, North Carolina
Community College System; Nancy La Vigne, Urban Institute; Glenn Martin, National
H.I.R.E. Network; Marc Mauer, The Sentencing Project; Bill Muth and Renee Ritter, U.S.
Federal Bureau of Prisons; Mike Parsons, Hagerstown Community College; Dallas Pell,
Pell Grants for Public Safety Initiative; Benay Rubenstein, Episcopal Social Services; Steve
Steurer, Correctional Education Association; Charlie Sullivan, CURE; Richard Tewksbury,
University of Louisville; Michele Welch, Columbus State Community College; and Jeff
Wilson, New Mexico Department of Corrections.
We would also like to thank the Ford Foundation for providing generous financial support
for this project.

Learning to Reduce Recidivism

Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................v
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................ix
CHAPTER 1: Prisons and Prisoners................................................................................................ 1
CHAPTER 2: The Value of Postsecondary Correctional Education ............................................... 7
CHAPTER 3: The Current Status of Postsecondary Correctional Education
in the United States .................................................................................................. 13
CHAPTER 4: Funding Postsecondary Correctional Education .................................................... 27
CHAPTER 5: Barriers to Accessing Postsecondary Correctional Education .............................. 37
CONCLUSIONS AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS .................................................................................... 47
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................. 49
APPENDIX ...................................................................................................................................... 53

iii

iv

Learning to Reduce Recidivism

Figures and Tables
FIGURE 1. Race/ethnicity of state and federal prisoners with sentences over one year versus
the total U.S. population, 2003.
FIGURE 2. Socioeconomic characteristics of state and federal prisoners before arrest versus
the total U.S. population, 1997.
FIGURE 3. Highest educational attainment of state and federal prisoners versus the total U.S.
population, 1997.
FIGURE 4. Average number of prisoners enrolled in postsecondary correctional education
programs, 2003-04.
FIGURE 5. Percentage of prison systems using various factors to determine prisoner eligibility
for postsecondary correctional education, 2003-04.
FIGURE 6. Distribution of prisoners enrolled in postsecondary correctional education programs
by degree type, 2003-04.
FIGURE 7. Postsecondary correctional education completion rates by degree type, 2003-04.
FIGURE 8. Distribution of institutions providing postsecondary instruction to prisoners,
2003-04.
FIGURE 9. Percentage of prison systems using various means of instruction for postsecondary
correctional education, 2003-04.
FIGURE 10. Percentage of state prison systems using various funding sources for
postsecondary correctional education, 2003-04.
TABLE 1. Prison systems with at least 1,000 inmates enrolled in postsecondary correctional
education, 2003-04.

Learning to Reduce Recidivism

Executive Summary

H

igher education for prisoners, often the subject of public controversy, remains a crucial
strategy in efforts to reduce recidivism and slow the growth of the nation’s incarcerated
population. New research conducted by the Institute for Higher Education Policy
shows that corrections officials are finding innovative ways to support postsecondary
programs in their prison systems. Despite the loss of Pell Grant eligibility a decade ago,
prisoners are participating in higher education in record numbers nationwide. With
additional funding and concentrated efforts to reduce the many barriers that still make
it difficult for prisoners to gain access to higher education, postsecondary correctional
education programs offer the potential to provide incarcerated men and women with a
second chance at productive citizenship.

Underlying Principles
This report is based upon several primary assumptions that reflect current research
in the field of justice policy. Data collected by the federal government show that
prisoners nationwide are far less educated than the general U.S. population and, before
incarceration, were significantly more impoverished.Young minority men are particularly
overrepresented in American prisons. Overall, the people who make up the incarcerated
population are, in fact, those who have had the least opportunity prior to imprisonment.
Furthermore, research studies provide strong evidence that postsecondary correctional
education can achieve a variety of important purposes. Higher education can improve
conditions within correctional facilities, enhance prisoner self-esteem and prospects for
employment after release, and function as a cost-effective approach to reducing recidivism.
Educating prisoners also allows them access to the many economic and social benefits
associated with higher education. Postsecondary correctional education offers a chance to
break the cycle of inequality and benefit both the formerly incarcerated person and the
society in which he or she lives.

Key Findings
Recent discussions about the state of higher education for prisoners have focused on the
lack of available funding for postsecondary correctional education and the elimination
of college programs in prisons following the 1994 loss of Pell Grant eligibility for state
and federal prison inmates. The current challenge is to determine what postsecondary
correctional education programs exist and how corrections officials fund and implement
those programs. The Institute for Higher Education Policy undertook an original survey of
correctional education administrators to gather data about these questions. This report uses
that survey to examine the details of postsecondary correctional education programs in the
state and federal prison systems as of 2003-04. Key findings from the study include:

v

vi

Learning to Reduce Recidivism

•

Out of the 46 prison systems responding to the survey, 44 reported offering
higher education to at least some inmates. The percentage of prisoners enrolled in
postsecondary correctional education programs has returned to the levels found before
eligibility for the Pell Grants was eliminated, and because of significant growth in the
prison population, the actual number of incarcerated men and women taking collegelevel classes during 2003-04 was substantially higher than in the years leading up to
1994. Nonetheless, postsecondary correctional education was still available only to
about 5 percent of prisoners, and degree completion rates were low.

•

The 15 higher-enrollment prison systems identified in this report—each with more
than 1,000 prisoners taking college classes—enrolled 89 percent of all incarcerated
students and awarded 96 percent of all degrees and certificates granted to prisoners
nationwide. Prison systems with larger postsecondary enrollments tend to have sizeable
inmate populations, a focus on shorter vocational degree and certificate programs, and
substantial public funding for postsecondary correctional education.

•

Sixty-two percent of prisoners who took college classes and 92 percent of those who
earned a credential in 2003-04 were enrolled in vocational certificate programs for
college credit. While these programs may be valuable in ensuring that prisoners are
able to complete a credential while incarcerated, it is worth noting that prison inmates
are not earning college degrees, even at the associate’s level, in any significant numbers.

•

At the time of the Institute survey, instruction for postsecondary correctional
education programs was most often offered by public two-year (community) colleges.
Very few private, for-profit institutions offered college courses in prisons. On-site
instruction was the most frequent instructional method, but some prison systems
offered distance education programs using video or satellite instruction. Internet
technology was rarely used because of security concerns.

•

Federal Incarcerated Youth Offender (IYO) block grants were the most commonly
cited source of funding for postsecondary correctional education programs in state
prison systems. State appropriations and prisoner self-funding were also important
sources of funds. Higher-enrollment prison systems were significantly more likely to
rely on state funding for their postsecondary correctional education programs while
lower-enrollment systems most often relied on IYO funding.

•

Survey respondents indicated that a lack of funding is the key barrier that prevents
prison systems from enrolling more incarcerated students in college courses. Eligibility
restrictions limit the number of prisoners who can be funded under the IYO grants,
which makes it difficult for states to develop extensive postsecondary correctional
education programs. State funding, the likely alternative, has been reduced or
eliminated in some states. Prisoner self-funding is, for the most part, unfeasible because
few incarcerated people earn enough money to cover the cost of college classes.

•

A number of additional barriers also prevent prisoners from enrolling in, and
completing, postsecondary programs.
◗

Poor academic preparation means that many incarcerated students need
remediation, especially in English and math, before taking college-level courses.

Learning to Reduce Recidivism

•

◗

Security protocols at correctional facilities can make it difficult to conduct college
classes. Other logistical problems include the remote location of many prisons and
difficulties in hiring and retaining instructors to work on-site.

◗

Prison overcrowding often results in involuntary transfer from one correctional
facility to another which interrupts coursework sequences and prevents inmates
from completing their degree or certificate programs.

◗

Corrections officials, correctional educators, and higher education administrators
sometimes have conflicting priorities that can hinder the development of effective
policies to promote postsecondary correctional education.

Above all, a lack of support for postsecondary correctional education programs
among policymakers and the public makes each of these barriers more challenging
to overcome.

Policy Recommendations
➤ Additional funding is needed to increase the number of prisoners who have access to
higher education.
•

Reinstate Pell Grant eligibility for incarcerated men and women.

•

Expand the federal Incarcerated Youth Offender grant program by increasing
funding, raising the age limit for eligible prisoners to age 35, and eliminating the
per-year, per-student spending cap.

•

Eliminate the 1 percent cap on the use of Carl D. Perkins Vocational–Technical
Education Act funding for prison programs.

•

Increase state appropriations for postsecondary correctional education programs.

•

Ensure that public colleges and universities receive state formula funding for
serving incarcerated students.

•

Allow incarcerated students to receive state need-based grants as low-income
students.

•

Increase private funding for postsecondary correctional education programs by
soliciting resources from foundations, colleges and universities, corporations, and
private individuals.

➤ State-level support is essential if postsecondary correctional education programs are
to thrive.
•

Encourage effective working relationships among state agencies responsible for
corrections, correctional education, and higher education.

•

Build partnerships between postsecondary correctional education programs and
colleges and universities, especially community colleges.

vii

viii

Learning to Reduce Recidivism

•

Develop state and institutional policies that strongly support postsecondary
correctional education. Such policies include:
◗

Encouraging experiments with distance education methods, including
Internet-based distance education using secure network connections.

◗

Offering placement testing, testing for learning disabilities, and opportunities
for remedial education to improve the students’ chances of success in collegelevel courses.

◗

Providing funding for corrections staff to participate in the college courses
offered at correctional facilities.

◗

Guaranteeing that prisoners will not be involuntarily transferred, except for
disciplinary reasons, while enrolled in college classes.

➤ Building state-level support for postsecondary correctional education will necessarily
involve educating policymakers and the public.
•

Publicize successful outcomes from postsecondary correctional education programs.

•

Enlist support from advocacy organizations in the areas of prisoner rehabilitation
and re-entry and access to higher education for disadvantaged groups.

•

Begin a national dialogue and frame the conversation in terms of inmate
accountability—the idea that prisoners should make some attempt at selfimprovement while incarcerated.

Learning to Reduce Recidivism

Introduction

E

normous increases in the U.S. prison population over the last two decades have led to the
release from prison of correspondingly large numbers of people. In 2003 alone, more
than 650,000 men and women left state and federal prisons (Harrison & Beck 2005).
At the end of 2003, almost three-quarters of a million American adults were on parole.
Many of these formerly incarcerated people, however, quickly return to prison. Statistics
from the U.S. Department of Justice suggest that less than half of parolees successfully
complete their parole (Glaze & Palla 2004). Recidivism, whether defined as re-arrest,
reconviction, or return to prison, is also disturbingly high. In fact, a longitudinal study
determined that, within three years, 68 percent of prisoners released in 1994 were arrested
for a new offense, 47 percent were reconvicted, and 52 percent returned to prison, either
for a new sentence or for a parole violation (Langan & Levin 2002).
These numbers indicate a serious problem with the nation’s criminal justice system. Prison
populations continue to increase, at an annual cost of nearly $30 billion (Stephan 2004),
but crime rates, after dropping throughout the 1990s during a period of strong economic
growth, have leveled off. More than 20 percent of American households continue to be
victimized by crime each year (Catalano 2004). Meanwhile, prisoners are serving longer
sentences than in the past but are then released without the education or skills necessary
to find productive employment. These formerly incarcerated people return to their
communities—frequently those areas with the least capacity to provide them with needed
assistance—and all too often end up returning to prison (Travis, Solomon, & Waul 2001).
Without significant attention by policymakers to the problem of prisoner re-entry, this
situation is likely to intensify, resulting in a continuous cycle of poverty and crime.

Is education the answer?
Despite limited funding and a frequent lack of public support, corrections officials have
made efforts to establish prison programming that helps inmates successfully re-enter
society after release from prison. Such programs include substance abuse treatment,
life skills training such as anger management, vocational training, employment in
prison industries, and educational programs at all levels from adult basic education to
postsecondary education. By improving the mental, physical, and social well-being of
prisoners, as well as providing them with job training and other skills, these programs
benefit society at large by reducing crime and strengthening communities (Lawrence et al
2002). Prison programming also allows prisoners, by trying to improve themselves while
incarcerated, to make a contribution to society in return for their room and board.
Among the various types of programming available to prisoners, postsecondary education
serves a particularly important role. Research consistently demonstrates that participation
in educational programs while incarcerated reduces recidivism rates by increasing an
individual’s ability to successfully rejoin mainstream society upon release from prison

ix

x

Learning to Reduce Recidivism

(Chappell 2004). Offering higher education to prisoners, very few of whom have had
the opportunity to attend college prior to incarceration, may be especially valuable in
a society where postsecondary credentials are increasingly necessary to gain access to
living-wage jobs. Formerly incarcerated people often experience difficulties in gaining
employment after release from prison, both because they lack marketable skills and
because they may face discrimination due to their criminal records (Travis, Solomon, &
Waul 2004). Without jobs that pay a living wage, ex-offenders often return to criminal
activity. Postsecondary correctional education programs can overcome these difficulties
by offering formerly incarcerated men and women the opportunity to gain access to the
many benefits that higher education offers in American society.
Postsecondary correctional education programs have a substantial history in the United
States, dating back to the early nineteenth century. Until the 1960s, however, the idea
of providing publicly funded higher education for prisoners was not widely embraced.
By the end of that decade, more than half of U.S. states offered higher education
programs, including on-site instruction, to inmates in their prison systems (Gehring
1997). These prison education programs received an enormous boost in 1972 with
the creation of the Pell Grant program, which provided a significant source of higher
education funding for prisoners, most of whom were eligible for federal need-based
financial aid (Wright 2001). By the 1980s, however, the War on Drugs and other
“tough on crime” efforts led to enormous increases in the prison population, reducing
available funding for all prison programming (Spangenberg 2004). Nonetheless, a 1983
study of correctional education programs found that 41 state prison systems offered
postsecondary programs, enrolling almost 5 percent of the prison population nationwide
(Ryan & Woodard 1987).
A public debate in the early 1990s about the use of Pell Grants to fund higher
education for prisoners led to a provision in the Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994 that no person incarcerated in a state or federal correctional
facility could receive a Pell Grant. Crucial arguments underlying this debate suggested
that awarding Pell Grants to prisoners was unacceptable in an era of budget cuts for
social programs, and that such grants took money that could have been better used to
assist law-abiding college students in paying for school. These arguments were based on
false assumptions about the extent of Pell Grant funding that went to prisoners. In fact,
during the 1993-94 academic year, approximately 27,000 prisoners received around
$35 million in Pell Grant funding, less than 1 percent of the total $6 billion spent on
the program that year. Moreover, no students were ever denied a Pell Grant because of
prisoner participation in the program (Institute for Higher Education Policy 1994).
The loss of Pell Grant funding had an immediate adverse impact on postsecondary
correctional education. A 1995 study by the American Correctional Association found
that the number of states offering such programs dropped, in one year, from 37 to
26 while prisoner enrollment in postsecondary programs dropped nearly 40 percent
during the same time frame (Wees 1995). This decline in programming continued in
subsequent years. By 1997, another American Correctional Association study found
only 21 states that offered formal postsecondary education programs in their prisons.
Those programs enrolled less than 2 percent of the total prison population nationwide
(American Correctional Association 1997).

Learning to Reduce Recidivism

In 1998, Congress created a program that provides block grants to help state prison systems
fund postsecondary education for youthful offenders, defined as those age 25 and younger.
These Incarcerated Youthful Offender (IYO) grants allowed most states to create or expand
postsecondary programs in their prisons, albeit for a limited pool of participants. The
IYO grants, together with state funding in at least some states, have led to increases in the
number of prisoners participating in postsecondary correctional education programs over
the last several years, but the total number of participants still represent only a small fraction
of those who could benefit from access to higher education while incarcerated. In addition,
the IYO program must be reauthorized and funded by Congress every year, leaving open
the possibility that funds could be eliminated at any time.

Overview of this report
Over the last decade, a number of academic and policy studies have focused on the lack
of funding available for postsecondary correctional education and on the elimination of
postsecondary programs in prisons following the loss of Pell Grant eligibility for state
and federal prisoners. Far less research, however, has examined current postsecondary
correctional programs in the state and federal prison systems to determine what programs
exist and how corrections officials have funded and implemented them. This report aims to
expand that understanding.
The conclusions drawn by this report are based on a number of sources, most
importantly the Institute survey of correctional education administrators in all 50 states
plus the Federal Bureau of Prisons. This survey asked specific questions regarding the
postsecondary programs offered in each prison system—including enrollment levels,
eligibility requirements, instructional methods, graduation rates, and funding sources. The
survey also encouraged respondents to discuss particular barriers that reduce access to
higher education in their prison systems and innovative programs, if any, that have been
implemented to overcome these barriers. Forty-five states plus the Federal Bureau of
Prisons responded to the Institute survey, a 90 percent response rate.1 Additional data were
collected through interviews with correctional education personnel and from a review of
published material on the subject.
This report is organized into five chapters, beginning with a chapter on the demographics
of the U.S. prison population, illustrating the extent to which incarcerated men and
women represent a sector of the larger population that has not had adequate access to
educational opportunities even before entering prison. Chapter Two reviews the
available literature on the value of postsecondary correctional education, with particular
attention to the many studies that link correctional education programs to reduced
recidivism. The heart of the report is Chapter Three, which presents the data collected
from the Institute survey of correctional education administrators and develops a detailed
picture of the current state of postsecondary correctional education in the United States.
Chapters Four and Five then use this data to examine the many barriers, financial and
otherwise, that prevent prisoners from gaining access to postsecondary education during
their incarceration.
Information on survey format and methodology can be found in the Appendix.

1

xi

Learning to Reduce Recidivism

CHAPTE R 1 :

Prisons and Prisoners

O

n June 30, 2004, there were 1,410,404 men and women incarcerated in state or
federal prisons in the United States, representing about two-thirds of the nation’s
prison population, with the remainder in the custody of local jails.2 This number has
grown by 31 percent since 1995, straining state and federal budgets (Harrison & Beck
2005). Prison construction has boomed. Between 1995 and 2000, 204 additional adult
correctional facilities were added to the national count, a 14 percent increase (Stephan &
Karberg 2003). As of midyear 2004, one out of every 138 U.S. residents was incarcerated
(Harrison & Beck 2005). However, the incarceration rate is not evenly distributed across
the population. Certain subpopulations are dramatically overrepresented in this country’s
prisons, including those who are poor, those of minority race or ethnicity, and those
who are undereducated. This chapter outlines the demographic characteristics of those
incarcerated by gender and age, race, socioeconomic status, and educational attainment.

Gender and age
The prison population is not an accurate reflection of the U.S. population in many regards,
including gender and age. Although the incarceration rate of women has increased more
rapidly than that of men in recent years, in December 2003, 93 percent of prisoners under
state and federal jurisdiction were male. Within the U.S. population, men are almost 15
times more likely to be incarcerated than women. This statistic translates to a ratio of one
in every 109 men versus only one in every 1,613 women incarcerated in a state or federal
prison at the end of 2003 (Harrison & Beck 2004).
As of December 2003, just over half of prison inmates were 18-34 years of age. Although
prisoners under age 35 currently represent the majority in the prison population, this
population is aging—a result of both longer prison sentences and increases in criminal
convictions among older people. Since 1995, prisoners over age 40 have accounted for 55
percent of the total growth in the prison population (Harrison & Beck 2004).

Race
Although most people likely realize that certain racial and ethnic groups are
overrepresented in the prison population, the magnitude of the imbalance is worth special
Unless otherwise specified, the data reported in this section refer to prisoners under state and federal jurisdiction as defined
by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, which “includes inmates in custody and persons under the legal authority of a prison
system but held outside its facilities” (Harrison and Beck 2005). The data do not include the many prisoners held in the
custody of locally managed jails.
2

1

2

Learning to Reduce Recidivism

Figure 1: Race/ethnicity of state and federal prisoners with sentences over one
year versus the total U.S. population, 2003
80%
70%

% of Prisoners

68%

60%

% of Total Population

50%
44%

40%
30%

35%

20%

19%

10%
0%

12%
White

Black

14%

Hispanic

SOURCES: Harrison & Beck 2004; U.S. Census Bureau 2004

attention (Figure 1). In 2003, Blacks, who account for only 12 percent of the general
population, comprised 44 percent of all prisoners with sentences greater than one year.
Hispanics, about 14 percent of the general population, accounted for 19 percent of all
prisoners with sentences greater than one year. In contrast, while the general population
was 68 percent White, non-Hispanic, this group made up only 35 percent of prisoners
with sentences over one year (Harrison & Beck 2004; U.S. Census Bureau 2004). If
incarceration rates remain unchanged, about one in three Black men and one in six
Hispanic men are expected to go to prison during their lifetime as opposed to only one in
17 White men (Bonczar 2003).

Socioeconomic status
Prior to incarceration, prisoners were, in general, considerably more impoverished than the
general population (Figure 2). In 1997, 32 percent of state and federal prisoners reported
that they were unemployed in the month prior to arrest, vastly higher than the 1997
average unemployment rate of 5 percent for the U.S. population as a whole or even the 10
percent average unemployment rate found among Black Americans that year (U.S. Dept.
of Justice 2001; U.S. Census Bureau 1999).3 Moreover, nearly 9 percent of these prisoners
were homeless during the month prior to arrest, compared with the estimated 1 percent of
the U.S. population that experiences homelessness at some point over the course of a given
year (U.S. Dept. of Justice 2001; Burt 2000).

The Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Correctional Facilities, produced by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, is the
primary national source of information about prisoners prior to their arrest. This survey was last conducted in 1997 and more
recent data are not available.
3

Learning to Reduce Recidivism

Figure 2: Socioeconomic characteristics of state and federal prisoners before
arrest versus the total U.S. population, 1997
35%
30%

32%
30%
% of Prisoners

25%

% of Total Population

20%
15%

14%

10%
5%
0%

9%
5%
Unemployed

1%
Homeless

Received Public Assistance

SOURCES: U.S. Dept. of Justice 2001; U.S. Census Bureau 1999; Burt 2000; Curry, Mills, & Valdisera 1998

In terms of income, 43 percent of prisoners in 1997 reported making less than $800 per
month prior to arrest.4 This monthly income translates into less than $9,600 annually,
slightly higher than the national poverty rate of $8,183 annually for a single person in 1997
(U.S. Dept. of Justice 2001; Dalaker & Naifeh 1998). Since more than half of prisoners
reported having minor children at the time they entered prison, many of these families
can be assumed to have been living in poverty (Mumola 2000a). Certainly, 30 percent of
prisoners in 1997 reported having received some form of public assistance before entering
prison, compared to the 14 percent of the general population who received means-tested
assistance that year (U.S. Dept. of Justice 2001; Curry, Mills, & Valdisera 1998).
Poverty among Black prisoners prior to arrest was even more pronounced than for White
prisoners. While 37 percent of Black prisoners reported being unemployed prior to arrest,
only 26 percent of White prisoners were unemployed. The income of Black prisoners prior
to arrest was lower than that of Whites—49 percent of Black prisoners reported monthly
incomes of less than $800 compared to 36 percent of White prisoners. Black prisoners
were also more likely to have received public assistance at some point—35 percent reported
receiving such assistance versus 24 percent of White prisoners (U.S. Dept. of Justice 2001).

Educational attainment
An examination of the educational attainment of prison inmates demonstrates that
prisoners are much less educated, on average, than their counterparts in mainstream society
4

This figure may not include illegal sources of income.

3

4

Learning to Reduce Recidivism

Figure 3: Highest educational attainment of
state and federal prisoners versus the
total U.S. population, 1997

State Prisoners
Federal Prisoners
Total Population

50%
40%

49%

50%

48%

40%
33%

30%
27%

24%

20%
18%
10%
0%

11%

Some High School or Less

High School Diploma/GED

Some College or More

SOURCE: Harlow 2003

(Figure 3). As of 1997, 82 percent of Americans had either graduated from high school or
earned a General Educational Development (GED) credential. Among prisoners, on the
other hand, only 26 percent of those in state prisons and 41 percent of those in federal
prisons had graduated from high school. If GED attainment is included, the education
levels for federal prisoners move closer to those of the general population, with 73 percent
holding at least a GED or high school diploma. However, the educational attainment of
prisoners in the state prison systems continues to lag behind with only 60 percent holding
a GED, high school diploma, or higher. Moreover, at least 70 percent of state and federal
inmates who held a GED as of 1997 earned it while in prison (Harlow 2003).
The educational divide between the incarcerated population and the general population
becomes even more obvious when considering higher education alone. The general
population is much more likely to have at least some postsecondary education than is the
incarcerated population—as of 1997, nearly half of Americans had attended college at
some point, and nearly half of those, 22 percent of the general population, earned some
type of college degree. In contrast, only 11 percent of state prisoners in 1997 had at least
some college, and only 2 percent were college graduates. Federal prisoners had somewhat
more postsecondary education, but even so, only 24 percent had some college, and only 8
percent were college graduates. These findings hold true regardless of race or ethnicity. For
all racial and ethnic groups, the general population was four to five times more likely to
have attended college than were prisoners (Harlow 2003).
Educational attainment is also related to the socioeconomic characteristics of prisoners
prior to incarceration. In the month prior to arrest, 70 percent of state prison inmates

Learning to Reduce Recidivism

with at least some college were working full time, compared to 48 percent of those with
less than a high school diploma. In addition, those with some postsecondary education
were more than twice as likely to have earned at least $2,000 in the month before arrest,
compared to state prison inmates with less than a high school diploma (Harlow 2003).
There is also a correlation between educational attainment and
Data suggest that better
recidivism. Data suggest that better educated inmates are less likely
to relapse into criminal behavior after release from prison. Among
educated inmates are
prisoners in 1997, 34 percent of those with at least some college
were first-time offenders, compared to only 23 percent of those
less likely to relapse into
without a high school diploma or GED, suggesting that better
criminal behavior after
educated prisoners are less likely to be repeat offenders. This pattern
was particularly evident among prisoners who had a previous
release from prison.
juvenile record: 40 percent of prisoners without a high school
education and 45 percent of those with a GED had served a prior
prison sentence as a juvenile (Harlow 2003). These statistics are, of course, intertwined.
Serving a sentence as a juvenile may result in an individual not graduating from high
school, and many prisoners earn a GED while incarcerated. Nonetheless, these data
serve as a reminder that low educational attainment and incarceration work together to
create a population for whom a well-paying job and a secure lifestyle may be very
difficult to achieve.

Implications
The demographic profile presented above suggests that many prisoners have not
experienced much opportunity for success prior to incarceration. Prisoners are, in
particular, far less educated than the general population and, before incarceration, were
significantly more impoverished, even when controlling for such factors as race, age,
and gender. As a result, these men and women may have found it difficult to obtain
employment at living wages even before entering the criminal justice system.
Moreover, young minority men—a group that has been found to lack access to higher
education—are heavily overrepresented in the prison population. Researchers from the
Justice Policy Institute have, for instance, found that as of 2000, 30 percent more Black
men were in prison than were enrolled in college (Schiraldi & Ziedenberg 2002). In
2003, the same researchers concluded that a Black man in his thirties is twice as likely to
experience prison as to earn a college degree (Western, Schiraldi & Ziedenberg 2003).
It seems that the very people who make up the prison population are those who have
had the least opportunity prior to incarceration. Correctional education programs may, in
fact, be a way to help break the cycle of inequality, while at the same time reducing the
likelihood of recidivism by preparing incarcerated men and women for productive lives
after their release from prison.

5

Learning to Reduce Recidivism

CHAPTE R 2 :

The Value of Postsecondary
Correctional Education

P

olicymakers and the public now seem more willing to offer postsecondary education
to incarcerated men and women than they have been in recent years, but significant
objections remain. Some argue that it is unfair for prisoners to benefit from publicly
subsidized educational programs when law-abiding young people find it difficult to pay for
a college education. Others simply believe that the purpose of incarceration is to punish
criminals and that to offer educational programs will mitigate this punishment and
perhaps reduce the deterrent value of a prison sentence. On the other hand, for
many people, including a significant number of corrections officials, the benefits of
postsecondary correctional education seem so many and so important that they far
outweigh these concerns.

For correctional facilities
Many corrections officials point out that postsecondary correctional education can produce
positive results within the prison itself, including improved communication between
corrections staff and inmates, the development of positive peer role models for prisoners,
and reduced problems with disciplinary infractions (Taylor 1992). A survey of inmates at
an Indiana prison, for example, showed that prisoners enrolled in college classes committed
75 percent fewer infractions than the average inmate (Taylor 1994). Corrections officers
interviewed for a study of the college program at Bedford Hills—a maximum security
prison for women in New York—reported that offering college classes in the facility
both reduced disciplinary problems and enhanced the prisoners’ self-esteem and ability
to communicate effectively (Fine et al 2001). Studies also have shown that postsecondary
correctional education programs can break down racial barriers, which in the prison setting
are often an underlying cause of disciplinary problems and even violence (Taylor 1994).

For prisoners and their families
For many men and women, moreover, participating in educational programs while
incarcerated provides the first taste of academic success they may ever have experienced.
Successfully completing a class, or better still completing a degree, can help prisoners
recognize that hard work leads to positive results. These successes also can produce changes
in attitude that will be valuable after an individual is released from prison. The Bedford
Hills study mentioned above found that female prisoners enrolled in a college program

7

8

Learning to Reduce Recidivism

became better able to judge the consequences of their actions and to take responsibility
for them. As a result, women in the program were more likely to see themselves as active
participants in determining their own future and thus make choices that would help
improve their situation (Fine et al 2001).
These successes and changes in attitude, while important on a personal level, also can
have far reaching impact. More than half of prisoners have minor children at the time of
incarceration. Many of these prisoners—44 percent of men and 64 percent of women in
state prisons—lived with their children prior to incarceration and expect to be reunited
with them upon release. Most incarcerated parents also report that they maintain regular
contact with their children by phone, mail, or visits during their time in prison (Mumola
2000a). For these parents, working toward a college degree may be
especially important since it allows them to act as a role model for their
. . . the most important
children. The Bedford Hills study, for example, found that the children
of women enrolled in the program expressed pride in their mothers’
benefit of postsecondary
academic achievements and became themselves more motivated to attend
college (Fine et al 2001).
correctional education is

the prospect of improved

For prisoners with children, as well as for those without, the most
important benefit of postsecondary correctional education is the prospect
chances for employment
of improved chances for employment after release from prison. As the
previous chapter showed, many prisoners were unemployed or employed
after release from prison.
at very low-wage jobs prior to incarceration. After release, formerly
incarcerated people face the added difficulty of persuading employers to
hire them despite their criminal record. In some cases, prisoners may come to believe that
they have no hope of ever finding employment, even before they begin a job search.
A college degree earned in prison can help to counterbalance these problems. Research
has shown that Americans who have attended college are more likely to be employed
than those with only a high school diploma. Furthermore, college-educated workers are
more likely to be employed in high-wage jobs. Nationally, the income of those workers
with a bachelor’s degree was, on average, 93 percent higher than those with only a high
school diploma (Institute for Higher Education Policy 2005). These benefits hold true
even for those who enter college at a socioeconomic and educational disadvantage. A study
of California welfare recipients who attended community college, for example, found
that even those who had not completed high school before entering college were able
to significantly increase their income after graduating (Mathur et al 2004). For formerly
incarcerated people, then, a college education may be the key to finding productive and
gainful employment.

For taxpayers
Over the last decade, the number of inmates in state and federal prisons in the United
States increased astronomically. At the end of 2003, more than 2.2 million people were
incarcerated in all U.S. correctional facilities, at enormous cost to taxpayers (Harrison &
Beck 2004). The Department of Justice reported that, as of 2001, state prison systems cost
taxpayers almost $30 billion annually and state spending on prisons had increased over 6

Learning to Reduce Recidivism

percent since 1986. The vast majority of these public dollars built new prisons and kept
the existing ones running. Nearly two-thirds of the money, in fact, went to pay the salaries,
wages, and benefits of corrections staff while construction expenditures, although down
significantly from previous years, still exceeded $800 million in 2001 (Stephan 2004). In
an effort to curb this alarming increase in prison costs, some policymakers have proposed
alternatives to incarceration including supervised treatment programs for drug offenders,
probation with community service, or work-release programs (Peter D. Hart Research
Associates 2002).
Offering higher education to prisoners is another potential response to the problem
of spiraling costs. Currently, more than half of formerly incarcerated people return to
prison within three years, making recidivism a significant cause of
the increasing prison population (Langan & Levin 2002). Studies
Studies also suggest that
clearly demonstrate that prisoners who participate in postsecondary
correctional education have lower recidivism rates than those who
postsecondary education,
do not have access to higher education while incarcerated. For
example, one analysis examined 15 different studies conducted
as opposed to other types
during the 1990s and found that 14 of these studies showed
of prison programming, is
reduced recidivism for former prisoners who had participated in
postsecondary correctional education. Recidivism rates for these
particularly effective in
individuals were, on average, 46 percent lower than for ex-offenders
who had not taken college classes (Chappell 2004). Such studies
reducing recidivism.
indicate that providing higher education to prisoners can help ensure
that they will not return to prison after release.
Critics argue, however, that these recidivism studies reflect the self-selecting nature of
prisoners who pursue higher education, suggesting that such motivated individuals are less
likely to relapse into criminal behavior in any case. Recent studies have tried to account
for this effect by comparing individuals who participated in educational programming
while in prison with those of similar background and motivation levels who did not.
One particularly extensive study, which tracked more than 3,000 ex-offenders from three
states for a period of three years following their release from prison, found that former
prisoners who had participated in education programs were 29 percent less likely to have
been sent back to prison at the end of the three-year study (Steurer, Smith, & Tracy 2001).
Findings such as these provide evidence that the education itself, rather than the personal
characteristics of the prisoners who take advantage of educational opportunities, leads to
lower recidivism rates.
Studies also suggest that postsecondary education, as opposed to other types of prison
programming, is particularly effective in reducing recidivism. A study of nearly 1,000
former prisoners in Ohio, for instance, compared individuals who completed a college
degree while incarcerated to those who completed other types of correctional education
programming such as GED preparation courses or non-credit vocational training. This
study found that, while earning a GED or completing a vocational program did reduce
recidivism, completing an associate’s degree had a particularly significant impact, reducing
the likelihood of re-incarceration by 62 percent (Batiuk et al 2005). Postsecondary
correctional education programs can, therefore, be seen as a highly useful tool in reducing
high rates of recidivism.

9

10

Learning to Reduce Recidivism

These numbers also demonstrate that the cost of educating prisoners may well be repaid
by a reduction in costs associated with recidivism, particularly by a reduction in the
number of people re-incarcerated for a new conviction or parole violation. As of 2001,
the average annual cost of incarceration was more than $22,000 per prisoner (Stephan
2004). Therefore, that amount of money is saved each year for each former inmate who
does not return to prison. Only a small fraction of corrections budgets, around 6 percent
nationwide, is used to pay for all prison programming, including educational programs
at all levels as well as a range of other rehabilitative services (American Correctional
Association 2003). Even if educational programs are expanded, their per-prisoner cost is
far less than the total cost of incarceration. Government analysts in Maryland, for example,
used the results of a recidivism study to calculate that education programs saved taxpayers
more than $24 million annually, more than twice what the state spends on such programs
(Steurer, Smith, & Tracy 2001). Such analyses, moreover, do not consider the added savings
that can be gained by reducing recidivism, including reduced reliance on welfare and other
publicly subsidized programs and increased taxes paid by formerly incarcerated people
employed in higher wage jobs. Clearly, prison higher education programs can be a costeffective investment of taxpayer dollars (Box 1).

BOX 1: THE FISCAL BENEFITS OF POSTSECONDARY CORRECTIONAL EDUCATION
The state of Texas, in 2004, spent $2.4 billion on corrections, averaging $14,300 per prisoner (Texas Dept. of Criminal
Justice 2004). The state’s postsecondary correctional education program, however, cost only $3.7 million, a tiny
fraction of the overall corrections budget, at a cost of just over $382 per prisoner (Windham School District 2004).
Most of the postsecondary correctional education offered in Texas prisons is provided by the state’s community
colleges. In 2001-02, the most recent year for which data are available, Texas community colleges spent about
$2,700 per student, based on total unduplicated headcount (Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board 2003).
Therefore, the annual cost to the state of Texas for providing postsecondary education to one prisoner is around
$3,082.
Data collected by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice show that Texas prisoners who earn an associate’s
degree while incarcerated return to prison at a rate of 27 percent, compared to a 43 percent recidivism rate for
the state prison system as a whole (Windham School District 2004). This reduction means that, of the 415 Texas
prisoners who earned associate’s degrees in 2004, 66 fewer would return to prison within three years than would
have been expected otherwise.
The cost to the state of Texas for providing two years of postsecondary education to the cohort of prisoners who
earned associate’s degrees in 2003-04 was less than $2.6 million, while the savings to taxpayers for each year the
66 additional ex-offenders remain out of prison would be almost $944,000 (holding per capita incarceration costs
constant at 2003-04 levels). At the end of three years, the savings from not incarcerating those 66 people would
exceed the costs of educating the entire cohort of prisoners who earned associate’s degrees in 2003-04 by almost
$274,000. Furthermore, each additional year these former inmates remain out of prison would result in additional
savings for the state’s taxpayers.
NOTE: This estimate does not represent a net present value calculation nor does it attempt to measure the net social
benefit, just the cost savings to taxpayers.

Learning to Reduce Recidivism

For society as a whole
There is an increasing tendency in the United States to focus on the private economic
gains of receiving a college degree, by pointing to, for example, the increase in income
enjoyed by degree-holders. However, the public gains accrued from higher education are
equally important. Those citizens who attend college tend to contribute more to the social
good through such means as greater tax revenue, greater productivity, decreased reliance
on government financial support, greater contributions to the community, and higher
participation in civic life such as voting and volunteering. A report by the Institute for
Higher Education Policy notes that “failure to invest in college access for all students
not only results in diminished personal economic opportunities for low-income students,
but also weakens the fabric of society and risks costing the nation more in the long
term” (2004).
This argument holds particular relevance in light of the discussion of higher education
for prisoners. As indicated in the previous chapter, the prison population includes many
individuals who have been poorly served by society. They have, in many cases, suffered
the consequences of broken families, inadequate schools, racial discrimination, and
physical or sexual abuse. For these men and women, the opportunity to obtain a college
education while incarcerated may be the first glimmer of hope that they can escape the
cycles of poverty and violence that have dominated their lives. To offer this hope makes
postsecondary correctional education more than a means of saving taxpayer dollars, although
it will surely do that as well. It becomes a second chance that, if successful, can work to
better both the formerly incarcerated person and the society in which he or she lives.

11

Learning to Reduce Recidivism

CHAPTE R 3 :

The Current Status of
Postsecondary Correctional
Education in the United States

T

he general perception of postsecondary educational opportunities for prisoners since the
loss of the Pell Grants in 1994 has been quite grim. Previously published reports typically
indicate low enrollments and even lower completions. Funding is said to be sparse
and support from state and federal lawmakers slim. Despite these perceptions, however,
little is actually known about the details of correctional education programming in U.S.
prisons, including the number of facilities offering postsecondary education, enrollment
numbers, eligibility requirements, types of programs offered, degree completions, sources
and methods of instruction, and funding sources.
This chapter describes the data collected on these topics from the Institute survey of
correctional education administrators in all 50 states plus the Federal Bureau of Prisons.
The survey achieved a 90 percent response rate with 45 states plus the Federal Bureau
of Prisons responding.5 Additional qualitative data were collected through telephone and
face-to-face interviews with correctional education officials from a number of prisons
systems as well as through a review of published material on the topic of postsecondary
correctional education.

Prison systems offering postsecondary education
The data collected from this survey suggest that prison postsecondary education
programs are, in fact, on the rise. This trend seems to be a relatively new development.
As recently as 2002, a similar study found that only 30 state prison systems offered
postsecondary education to prisoners (Messemer 2003).6 As of 2003-04, however, 44 of
the 46 prison systems responding to the survey discussed in this report—43 states plus
the Federal Bureau of Prisons—reported offering at least some postsecondary education
programs.7 These numbers suggest a recent and hopeful development in postsecondary
correctional education.
Information on survey format and methodology can be found in the Appendix. States not responding to the survey were
Florida, Kansas, Kentucky, New Hampshire, and New York.
6
The author of this study did not include the Federal Bureau of Prisons.
7
The state prison systems that reported having no postsecondary correctional education programs were South Dakota and
Vermont.
5

13

14

Learning to Reduce Recidivism

Table 1: Prison systems with at least 1,000 inmates enrolled in postsecondary
correctional education, 2003-04
Number of
Inmates Enrolled

Percentage of
Inmates Enrolled

Texas

9,694

11%

North Carolina

9,220

11%

Washington

6,967

8%

Illinois

5,775

7%

California

4,247

5%

Colorado

4,200

5%

Indiana

3,353

4%

Ohio

3,176

4%

Wisconsin

3,000

4%

Alabama

3,000

4%

Minnesota

2,881

3%

Louisiana

2,100

2%

Arizona

1,666

2%

New Jersey

1,630

2%

All lower enrollment prison systems

9,802

11%

85,491

100%

Prison System
Federal Bureau of Prisons

Total Enrollment

NOTE: Florida, Kansas, Kentucky, New Hampshire, and New York did not respond to the survey. South Dakota and Vermont have no
postsecondary correctional education programs. Idaho and Michigan could not provide enrollment numbers.
SOURCE: Institute Survey 2005

During the data analysis, however, an important pattern emerged, one that will be
highlighted throughout this chapter. Out of the 44 prison systems that reported offering
postsecondary education programs, only 14 states and the Federal Bureau of Prisons
had total enrollments of at least 1,000 incarcerated students for the 2003-04 academic
year, and these 15 prison systems enrolled 89 percent of all prisoners who participated
in postsecondary correctional education nationwide (Table 1).8 This finding indicates a
need to pay special attention to these higher-enrollment prison systems since they are
responsible for much of the postsecondary correctional education currently taking place in
the United States (Box 2).

Correctional facilities offering postsecondary education
The prison systems that responded to the Institute survey reported that, on average, 42
percent of their adult correctional facilities offered postsecondary education courses
or programs during the 2003-04 academic year.9 Although this percentage says little
The choice of 1,000 incarcerated students as a cut-off is, of course, arbitrary and results in artificial distinctions such as
placing Utah, with 982 postsecondary correctional education participants, in the lower-enrollment group. However, the
results revealed by this analysis seem worth making this distinction.
9
The definition of adult correctional facility used in the Institute survey corresponds to that used by the Bureau of Justice
Statistics for its Census of State and Federal Adult Correctional Facilities and includes a variety of types of correctional
facilities that house primarily state and federal prisoners. The definition excludes both local jails and facilities for juvenile
offenders (Stephan & Karberg 2003).
8

Learning to Reduce Recidivism

BOX 2: HIGHER ENROLLMENT IN POSTSECONDARY CORRECTIONAL EDUCATION
Examining more closely the postsecondary correctional educational program in one state can help clarify why some
states are able to enroll many more prisoners in college courses than others. North Carolina, which as of December
2003 ranked 14th in the nation in terms of the number of people incarcerated (Harrison & Beck 2004), was second
only to Texas in the number of prisoners enrolled in postsecondary correctional education as of 2003-04. North
Carolina’s success in providing higher education for prisoners illustrates some of the qualities that define the entire
group of prison systems that each enrolled at least 1,000 prisoners in college classes that year.
Through a partnership between the Department of Corrections (Division of Prisons) and the North Carolina
Community College System, as well as through a contract with the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill,
the state of North Carolina was able to offer postsecondary educational programming in almost all of the state’s
prisons during the 2003-04 academic year. Enrollment reached 9,220 prisoners—nearly 22 percent of the more
than 42,000 prisoners who passed through the prison system in 2003 and fully two-thirds of those who held
a high school diploma or GED. In 2003-04, North Carolina prisoners were awarded more than 7,000 vocational
certificates and 600 associate’s degrees for an 86 percent overall completion rate, one of the highest among
survey respondents.
These postsecondary educational programs are entirely publicly funded. In the case of classes offered through
the state’s community colleges, the Division of Prisons provides start-up facilities such as classrooms and lab
equipment while the North Carolina Community College System hires instructors and paid their salaries. The
community college system then receives formula funding from the state based on the number of student contact
hours. The cost of textbooks is divided equally between the two agencies. The state also uses a federal Incarcerated
Youth Offender grant to cover postsecondary educational costs for some prisoners.
The goal of this interagency partnership, in place since 1992, has been to reduce excessive growth in the state’s
incarcerated population by improving an inmate’s chance of becoming employed and living a productive life after
release. A steering committee made up of representatives from both agencies meets twice each year to set policy
and solve problems. Individual prisons and local community colleges work together to provide correctional education
programs. A detailed matrix helps determine which correctional facilities—based on the average length of sentence
for each facility—can offer each type of postsecondary educational program, thus ensuring that prisoners are
enrolled in degree or certificate programs that they will be able to complete while incarcerated.
The experience in North Carolina demonstrates some patterns that help explain the higher enrollments in
postsecondary correctional education in certain prison systems. First, the state has a relatively large prison system,
although it also enrolls a very high percentage of those prisoners who are eligible to participate in postsecondary
education programs. Larger prison systems, which have larger budgets and more eligible prisoners, find it easier to
use resources efficiently. In addition, North Carolina’s postsecondary correctional education programs emphasize
short-term vocational certificates and associate’s degrees. These shorter degree programs support the enrollment of
more prisoners and improve their chances of completion.
Above all, North Carolina’s state government has made a strong commitment to postsecondary correctional
education programs and has recognized that such programs are ultimately cost-effective ways to reduce the prison
population. This sort of state support can be seen in both the public funding of these programs and in the strong
interagency partnership that coordinates them. State-level support is essential to overcoming the many barriers
that prevent prison systems from offering higher education to prisoners

15

16

Learning to Reduce Recidivism

about the types of programs available, it indicates that, contrary to popular perception,
postsecondary education is available to inmates in a significant number of prisons in the
United States.
This percentage shifts substantially when comparing the higher-enrollment group—the
15 prison systems with at least 1,000 prisoners enrolled in postsecondary correctional
education—to the state prison systems with lower enrollments. The states in the lowerenrollment group offered postsecondary correctional education in only 35 percent of
their adult correctional facilities, while 54 percent of the adult correctional facilities in
the higher-enrollment prison systems offered postsecondary correctional education.

Prisoners enrolled in postsecondary correctional education
During 2003-04, there were at least 85,491 prisoners enrolled in postsecondary
education in the prison systems that responded to the survey.10 This number represents
almost 5 percent of the total number of prisoners incarcerated in those systems during
2003, a number comparable to the percentage of prisoners enrolled in college courses
before the loss of the Pell Grants (Ryan & Woodard 1987). However, 89 percent of all
postsecondary enrollments among prisoners came from the higher-enrollment prison
systems, despite the fact that those systems incarcerated only 66 percent of the total
prison population nationwide. There was also substantial variation between the average
enrollments in the higher- and lower-enrollment prison systems. While the higherenrollment systems enrolled an average of 5,046 prisoners in postsecondary correctional
education during 2003-04, the lower-enrollment systems enrolled only 363 prisoners
on average (Figure 4). Some of this variation in enrollment is likely due to economies of
scale—once a certain critical mass has been reached, enrolling each subsequent prisoner
becomes less expensive.
Of course, not every prisoner is eligible for postsecondary education. According to a
Bureau of Justice Statistics report, only 60 percent of state and 73 percent of federal
prisoners have the requisite education—at least a GED or high school diploma (Harlow
2003). While educational attainment varies significantly among prison systems, the results
of this survey suggest that around 11 percent of the eligible prison population actually
participated in postsecondary correctional education nationwide in 2003-04. Once again,
variation existed between the higher-enrollment and lower-enrollment prison systems.
Whereas the higher-enrollment systems provided postsecondary correctional education
to 14 percent of their eligible populations, only 4 percent of eligible prisoners received
postsecondary correctional education in lower-enrollment systems.
The issue of correspondence courses also bears mention. Because correspondence
courses are typically paid for by the prisoners themselves, many states do not track such
enrollments. As a result, there were undoubtedly prisoners enrolled in college courses
via correspondence who were not counted in the totals above. There is, however, a
Two state prison systems, Idaho and Michigan, reported that they offered postsecondary correctional education to some
prisoners but were unable to give the total number of participants. As a result, they have been excluded from any discussions
of enrollment and from analyses based on the higher- and lower-enrollment prison systems.
10

Learning to Reduce Recidivism

Figure 4: Average number of prisoners enrolled in postsecondary correctional
education programs, 2003-04
6,000
5,000

5,046

4,000
3,000
2,000

2,036

1,000
0

363
National

SOURCE: Institute Survey 2005

Higher Enrollment
Systems

Lower Enrollment
Systems

difference between higher- and lower-enrollment states when it comes to how they handle
correspondence courses. While 64 percent of higher-enrollment states reported having a
formal policy that outlines how prisoners may access a correspondence course, only 44
percent of lower-enrollment states have such policies. In many of these cases, the decision
is left to the discretion of the warden of each correctional facility, who may decide not to
allow enrollment in correspondence courses.

Eligibility requirements
Many prison systems consider various eligibility factors, in addition to the high school
or GED credential, before allowing prisoners to enroll in postsecondary education.
Some of these factors are mandated by the funding that states may use to pay for their
postsecondary correctional education programs. The federal Incarcerated Youth Offender
grants, for example, are only designed to provide postsecondary programming to prisoners
age 25 or younger who are within five years of release from prison. In addition, the use
of eligibility requirements such as length of time to release demonstrates a prison system’s
commitment to those inmates most likely to benefit from postsecondary educational
opportunities, often a crucial factor when justifying the expense of these programs to
policymakers and the public.
The higher-enrollment prison systems, in particular, reported that they consider a variety
of eligibility criteria in addition to educational achievement. With the exception of the
prisoner’s age and placement test scores, the higher-enrollment systems were more likely

17

18

Learning to Reduce Recidivism

Figure 5: Percentage of prison systems using various factors to determine prisoner
eligibility for postsecondary correctional education, 2003-04
100%

Higher Enrollment Systems
Lower Enrollment Systems

87%
80%

60%

60%
54%

53% 54%

47%

46%

40%

54%

53%
42%

27%
20%

0%

Age

Length of
Sentence

4%
Reason for
Incarceration

Time to
Release

Infractions

Test Scores

NOTE: Respondents could give multiple answers.
SOURCE: Institute Survey 2005

than the lower-enrollment systems to consider all of the factors affecting eligibility
listed on the Institute survey: length of sentence, reason for incarceration, length of
time until release, and infractions committed while incarcerated (Figure 5). In some
cases, the difference was quite substantial—87 percent of the higher-enrollment
systems indicated that they consider the length of time to release when permitting
prisoners to enroll in postsecondary education, compared to 54 percent of the lowerenrollment systems. Likewise, 27 percent of the higher-enrollment systems considered
the reason for incarceration, while only 4 percent of the lower-enrollment systems
did so. These numbers seem to indicate that carefully controlling who enrolls in
postsecondary education allows certain prison systems to provide postsecondary
education to more prisoners and, perhaps even more importantly, to help ensure that
these prisoners are able to complete their certificate or degree programs.

Degree programs and completions
Data from the Institute survey show that, while the percentage of prisoners enrolled
in postsecondary education has rebounded to its pre-1994 level, the types of
programs available to prisoners has shifted, with the majority of those enrolled in
postsecondary programs now taking vocational, rather than purely academic,
courses (Box 3).

Learning to Reduce Recidivism

BOX 3: VOCATIONAL OR ACADEMIC EDUCATION?
The debate about academic versus vocational programming for prisoners is an important one. Intuitively, vocational
courses hold some appeal: they often take less time to complete than academic courses of study, and they offer
work-related skills that prisoners may use immediately upon release. These qualities make vocational courses more
palatable to legislators who must justify offering higher education to prisoners.
The question that remains, however, is whether vocational education offers the same benefits as more traditional
academic work. Some research suggests that, while vocational training programs such as apprenticeships reduce
recidivism, they do so less effectively than traditional postsecondary education programs (Batiuk et al 2005).
Most such studies, however, focus only on non-credit vocational training, a type of programming that often does
not require a high school diploma or GED. Vocational courses for college credit are typically lumped in with other
postsecondary work, making it impossible to assess any differences in outcomes between postsecondary academic
programs and postsecondary vocational programs.
On the other hand, research on populations other than prisoners does provide some evidence that for-credit
vocational education may be of value to formerly incarcerated people. A California study of welfare recipients who
attended community college found, for example, that students who completed vocational certificates or associate’s
degree programs were more likely to find employment in their first two years after graduation than were students
in more traditional academic programs. This study also found that graduates with vocational associate’s degrees
earned more than students with traditional academic degrees, and vocational certificate holders earned just as
much as those with non-vocational associate’s degrees (Mathur et al 2004). While some of the high-wage vocational
programs available to the participants in this study, such as nursing, cannot be offered to prisoners for security
reasons, others, including business degrees, are among the for-credit vocational programs typically offered in
prisons. Given the strong connection between post-release employment and reduced recidivism, the California study
suggests that for-credit vocational programs may be a good fit for postsecondary correctional education.

Degree and certificate programs
Almost two-thirds of prisoners enrolled in postsecondary correctional education as of 200304 were enrolled in for-credit vocational certificate programs.11 The remaining prisoners
taking college classes were, for the most part, enrolled in associate’s degree programs. Only
3 percent of prisoners nationwide were enrolled in programs that would lead to either a
bachelor’s or a graduate degree. These numbers help counter the perception that prisoners
are being rewarded for their crimes with the opportunity to earn high-level college degrees.
Rather, the postsecondary programs offered to prisoners are generally those that will aid
their re-entry into society by providing them with enhanced work skills.
As might be expected, the higher-enrollment prison systems were responsible for the
general patterns in this data. In fact, two-thirds of these higher-enrollment prison systems
enrolled at least 75 percent of their postsecondary correctional education participants
Many prison systems offer vocational training programs for which incarcerated students receive professional certifications
recognized by employers rather than college credit. Some of these programs require that participants hold a high school
diploma or college degree. For the purposes of this report, however, only courses taken for college credit were considered
postsecondary education.
11

19

20

Learning to Reduce Recidivism

Figure 6: Distribution of prisoners enrolled in postsecondary correctional
education programs by degree type, 2003-04
80%
70%

72%

69%

60%
50%

Higher Enrollment
Systems

40%

Lower Enrollment
Systems

30%
28%
20%

19%

10%
2%
0%

Certificate

Associate's

9%

Bachelor's/Graduate

SOURCE: Institute Survey 2005

in vocational certificate programs in 2003-04. The lower-enrollment systems displayed
substantially different results. These prison systems enrolled the majority (72 percent) of
their incarcerated students in associate’s degree programs. They also enrolled a greater
percentage of prisoners in bachelor’s degree programs compared to the higher-enrollment
systems (Figure 6). This finding suggests that one reason the higher-enrollment prison
systems are able to enroll so many more students is that they focus on short-term
vocational certificate programs. This conclusion is supported by the data from states such as
Washington and Colorado, which enrolled a significant percentage of eligible prisoners in
postsecondary programs, despite the smaller size of their prison systems. However,
these two states enrolled the vast majority of their incarcerated students in vocational
certificate programs.

Degree and certificate completions
While most of the prison systems responding to the Institute survey allow prisoners to
earn a degree while incarcerated, the rate of completions was quite low. For example,
slightly more than 8 percent of the prisoners enrolled in associate’s degree programs
completed their degree during the 2003-04 academic year. The completion rate was much
higher for vocational certificates, with 59 percent of prisoners enrolled in these programs
completing a credential. This finding is most likely attributable to the short duration of
certificate programs, compared to the lengthy time required to complete most degree
programs, a particular problem for prisoners who usually must attend college part-time and
who face many additional obstacles to amassing enough credits to earn a degree.

Learning to Reduce Recidivism

Figure 7: Postsecondary correctional education completion rates by degree type,
2003-04
60%

59%

50%

55%

Higher Enrollment Systems
Lower Enrollment Systems

40%
30%
20%

16%

10%

11%
1%

0%

Certificate

Associate's

3%
Bachelor's/Graduate

SOURCE: Institute Survey 2005

In 2003-04, inmates in the prison systems responding to this survey were awarded 2,191
college degrees and 24,627 certificates. The higher-enrollment prison systems accounted
for the vast majority of degree completions—96 percent of all degrees and certificates
awarded. This finding can, in part, be attributed to significantly higher enrollments
in vocational certificate programs in these systems. However, these systems also had
higher completion rates in all program types than did the lower-enrollment systems. For
example, only slightly more than 1 percent of incarcerated students in lower-enrollment
prison systems completed associate’s degrees in 2003-04 versus 11 percent in the higherenrollment systems (Figure 7).
In responding to the survey, a number of correctional educators discussed the low
completion rates for incarcerated students in their postsecondary programs. Often this
situation is due to factors beyond the control of educators, including the fact that in many
prison systems inmates must work to earn money to pay for essentials such as shampoo or
toothpaste and may therefore drop out of educational programs that interfere with work
assignments. In addition, degree and certificate completions are hindered in some prison
systems by policies that lead to frequent transfers between correctional facilities and by the
release of prisoners prior to completion of a degree or certificate program.

Sources and means of instruction
The Institute survey is the first in recent years to ask which institutions provide the
instruction for postsecondary correctional education, and responses indicated that the vast
majority of prisoners receive instruction from public two-year institutions—community
colleges (Figure 8). Indeed, in an unduplicated count, 68 percent of the 291 institutions
providing postsecondary correctional education in the United States during 2003-04 were

21

22

Learning to Reduce Recidivism

Figure 8: Distribution of institutions providing postsecondary instruction to
prisoners, 2003-04

6%

2-Year Public

10%

4-Year Public
4-Year Private Non-Profit

16%
68%

Other*

*Other includes less than 2-year public, 2-year and
less than 2-year private non-profit, and 4-year,
2-year, and less than 2-year private for-profit
SOURCE: Institute Survey 2005

community colleges.12 The next largest group of providers—16 percent—was public fouryear institutions. Private, nonprofit, four-year institutions represented only 10 percent of
the institutions providing postsecondary correctional education, and several of these were
schools such as Ohio University and Brigham Young University that offer well-known
and extensive correspondence programs. Moreover, very few for-profit institutions, only 4
percent of the total, provided instruction for postsecondary correctional education.13 This
finding stands in direct opposition to the perception that correctional education benefits
proprietary institutions at taxpayers’ expense, a situation that has been a problem in the past
but now seems to have been rectified.
In this age of technology, it seems reasonable to expect a significant use of the Internet
and other such resources for postsecondary instruction in correctional facilities. However,
survey respondents indicated that more traditional instructional methods are generally
utilized. For example, 91 percent of responding prison systems reported that on-site
instruction was used to teach postsecondary courses while 45 percent used video or
satellite instruction for at least some of their classes. Internet technology was the least
frequently used—correctional educators consistently cited security concerns when
discussing why their prison systems do not use this technology. Nonetheless, the potential
for Internet instruction in postsecondary correctional education still remains. New Mexico,
for example, has developed an Internet-based, distance-education program that uses a
secure network connection, and if this program continues to prove effective, it may be
adopted in other prison systems.
Survey respondents were asked to list all institutions providing instruction for their prison systems. Some institutions serve
more than one system through distance education or correspondence courses.
13
By comparison, among postsecondary institutions receiving Title IV federal student aid in 2003, 22 percent were public
two-year schools, 10 percent were public four-year schools, 24 percent were private non-profit four-year schools, and fully 38
percent were private for-profit schools (U.S. Dept. of Education 2003).
12

Learning to Reduce Recidivism

Figure 9: Percentage of prison systems using various means of instruction for
postsecondary correctional education, 2003-04
100%

80%

100%

Higher Enrollment Systems
Lower Enrollment Systems

85%

60%

60%

63%

60%

40%
37%
20%

0%

22%
0%
On-Site

Correspondence
Courses

Video/Satellite

Internet

NOTE: Respondents could give multiple answers.
SOURCE: Institute Survey 2005

Notably, the higher enrollment prison systems were most likely to use traditional
instructional methods (Figure 9). All of them offered on-site instruction in at least some
of their correctional facilities and a majority also offered video or satellite instruction.
Moreover, none of them offered Internet-based instructional options. This situation may
be attributed to a critical mass factor. If enough prisoners are enrolled in postsecondary
education, it becomes cost-effective to bring instructors into the correctional facility.
Lower-enrollment states, on the other hand, may be willing to experiment with Internetbased instruction if it will allow increased enrollments.

Funding sources
Funding for postsecondary correctional education in 2003-04 came from a number
of sources, which varied considerably among the state prison systems.14 The most
common source of funding, by far, was the federal Incarcerated Youth Offender (IYO)
grants, mentioned as a source of funding by 83 percent of states responding and as the
postsecondary program’s primary source of funding (more than half of all funds) by 42
percent. Another widely used source of funding was self-payment by prisoners—used in at
least 56 percent of states (some do not track self-funded courses). State appropriations also
were used to fund programs in 47 percent of states. Survey respondents from several states
that do not receive state funds noted that they are, in fact, forbidden by law to use state
monies to fund postsecondary educational opportunities for prisoners.
The Federal Bureau of Prisons, the budget for which is entirely funded by congressional appropriation, is not included in
this discussion. In addition, seven states that offer postsecondary correctional education programs were unable to provide a
breakdown of how these programs were funded and are not included in this analysis.
14

23

24

Learning to Reduce Recidivism

In an effort to obtain funding for postsecondary correctional education programs, states
have turned to a variety of less common funding sources. A number of state prison systems
reported receiving federal funding in addition to the Incarcerated Youth Offender grant.
In particular, several states noted that they used money provided by the Carl D. Perkins
Vocational-Technical Education Act to fund postsecondary vocational programs. Some
prison systems also have found supplemental sources of state and local funding. Oklahoma,
for example, funded some Native American prisoners with Tribal Council grants while
Texas allowed prisoners to benefit from Texas Public Education Grants and from the
Hazlewood Act, which waives tuition and some fees at public colleges and universities for
Texas military veterans. Many states also provided formula funding to public colleges and
universities based on the number of incarcerated students they served.
In other states, private funds were an important source of revenue—39 percent of states
reported some use of either private donations or scholarships sponsored by the colleges
that provided instruction for postsecondary correctional education. Massachusetts’s entire
postsecondary correctional education program, for example, was funded by Boston
University. In Virginia and other states, private scholarship funds have been established
using individual donations to help cover costs for prisoners taking college classes. Oregon
and Minnesota have taken the idea of private funding a step further and created private
nonprofit foundations that raise money to support postsecondary correctional education
programs in the state.
Although federal IYO grants were the funding source most often mentioned by both
higher- and lower-enrollment state prison systems, there were some significant variations
in funding sources between the two groups. While 75 percent of higher-enrollment
systems mentioned state appropriations as a source of funding, only 33 percent of lowerenrollment systems did so. Conversely, 63 percent of the lower-enrollment systems relied
on at least some self-funding by prisoners. Only 33 percent of higher-enrollment states
asked prisoners to pay a portion of the cost of their education while incarcerated—
although Texas requires its prisoners to reimburse the state for the cost of their education
after release from prison (Figure 10).
These variations become even more apparent when each state’s primary source of funds
for postsecondary correctional education programs is examined. Among the higherenrollment states, two-thirds received at least half their funding from state appropriations,
a figure that did not include any formula funding paid directly to the postsecondary
institutions providing instruction for these programs. Only 17 percent of lower-enrollment
states were able to use state appropriations as their primary funding source. On the other
hand, 50 percent of lower-enrollment states relied on federal IYO grants to provide more
than half their postsecondary funding versus only 25 percent of higher-enrollment states.
Reliance on IYO funding, of course, severely limits the number of prisoners a state can
serve because of eligibility restrictions, and funding for these grants is also subject to annual
review by Congress.
These variations in funding between higher- and lower-enrollment states emphasize the
importance of state support in achieving higher levels of enrollment in postsecondary
correctional education. Substantial state funding for these programs allows higherenrollment prison systems to provide an education for prisoners who may not have

Learning to Reduce Recidivism

Figure 10: Percentage of state prison systems using various funding sources for
postsecondary correctional education, 2003-04
100%

80%

Higher Enrollment Systems
83%

Lower Enrollment Systems

83%
75%

63%

60%

40%

42%
33%

33%

33%

20%

0%

Federal

NOTE: Respondents could give multiple answers.
SOURCE: Institute Survey 2005

State

Private

Inmate
Self-Funding

sufficient money to fund it themselves and to enroll older prisoners who are not
eligible for federal Incarcerated Youth Offender funding. State support also allows for
the creation of innovative programs like New Mexico’s distance-learning initiative,
which would not have been possible without the state commitment to funding higher
education for prisoners.

Key findings
The results of the Institute survey offer hope that postsecondary correctional education
has survived the loss of the Pell Grants a decade ago. The percentage of prisoners
enrolled in postsecondary correctional education programs has returned to the levels
found before eligibility for the Pell Grants was eliminated, and because of significant
growth in the prison population, the actual number of incarcerated men and women
taking college-level classes during 2003-04 was substantially higher than in the years
leading up to 1994.
Nonetheless, these findings still indicate that postsecondary correctional education
was available to only 5 percent of the prison population in 2003-04. In addition, the
15 higher-enrollment prison systems identified by the survey enrolled 89 percent of
incarcerated students and awarded 96 percent of the degrees and certificates granted to
prisoners nationwide. These higher-enrollment systems achieved their successes in part
through economies of scale, and strong state support for postsecondary correctional
education programs was also an important factor.

25

26

Learning to Reduce Recidivism

Another key finding is the fact that a majority of prisoners who took college classes
in 2003-04, and an even larger percentage of those who earned a credential, were
participating in vocational coursework for college credit. While these programs may, in
fact, be particularly valuable in ensuring that prisoners would be able to find employment
after release, it is worth noting that prison inmates are not earning college degrees,
even at the associate’s level, in any significant numbers. The benefits of postsecondary
education that increase with higher degrees still may remain out of reach of many formerly
incarcerated people.

Learning to Reduce Recidivism

CHAPTE R 4 :

Funding Postsecondary
Correctional Education

A

s the previous chapter demonstrates, there is some good news about the availability of
postsecondary correctional education in the United States. The fact remains, however,
that only around 11 percent of prisoners who hold a high school diploma or GED
were enrolled in college-level classes in 2003-04.15 One of the principal causes of this
low enrollment level, as mentioned by nearly every survey respondent, is lack of funding.
Funding for all prison programming is severely limited, as states must pay not only for
incarcerating a growing prison population, but also for the escalating costs of education
and health care (Stephan 2004). In many prison systems, the limited dollars available for
educational programs are spent on Adult Basic Education and GED preparation classes, on
the theory that the most poorly educated prisoners will benefit most from some education
(Spangenberg 2004). Even in those prison systems that have recognized the value of
postsecondary correctional education in reducing recidivism and preparing formerly
incarcerated people for re-entry into society, the funds to implement such programs may
simply not be available.

Federal funding
Since 1998, the federal Incarcerated Youth Offender (IYO) block grants have been a key
source of funding for postsecondary correctional education programs in many states,
especially those with smaller prison populations. However, the grant’s restrictions limit
its usefulness in some states. Massachusetts, for example, has found it difficult to use IYO
grant money to develop a cost-effective on-site postsecondary program because prisoners
who meet the eligibility requirements (age 25 or younger, holding a high school diploma
or GED, and within five years of release) are spread throughout the state’s correctional
facilities. Another problem mentioned by survey respondents is the grant’s annual cap
on the amount states can spend per student, which limits the number of courses each
incarcerated student can take during the year and thus significantly increases the time it
takes to complete a degree or certificate.
The age limit for the IYO program creates particular problems for correctional educators
in the state prison systems. Survey respondents frequently noted that incarcerated students
are often just getting started on their degree programs when they “age out” of IYO
Unless otherwise noted, all data in this chapter and the next come either from interviews with correctional educators
or from the survey of correctional education administrators conducted by the Institute for Higher Education Policy and
described in the previous chapter.
15

27

28

Learning to Reduce Recidivism

eligibility. A number of correctional educators also commented that older prisoners
would make better candidates for this funding in any case because they tend to be more
mature and focused, less likely to withdraw from classes, and more intent on improving
their situation after release from prison. Allowing older students to be funded by the
IYO grants would also assist those prisoners who earn a GED while incarcerated or who
must take remedial courses in preparation for college-level work by giving them time to
complete a postsecondary program.
States that rely on IYO funding for their postsecondary correctional education programs
are also in a precarious position because the program must be reauthorized by Congress
each year. This year, Senator Arlen Specter, the primary congressional advocate for this
program, is seeking to use the reauthorization process to address some of the concerns
raised by correctional educators. In July 2005, Senator Specter
introduced a bill reauthorizing the IYO program, extending its
States that rely on IYO
age limit to 35 years and younger, and increasing the annual perstudent spending cap. As of October 2005, this bill had not yet
. . . are also in a precarious
been considered by the Senate Committee on Health, Education,
position because the program
Labor, and Pensions. However, the change in the age limit—
although not the change to the per student spending cap—was
must be reauthorized by
included in the Higher Education Amendments bill passed by that
committee in September 2005 (Library of Congress 2005).
Congress each year.
An additional source of federal aid used by some states is
the Carl D. Perkins Vocational–Technical Education Act, a program that provides
block grants to states in support of vocational programs for both youth and adults.
Perkins funds are allocated to state vocational education agencies for distribution to
secondary and postsecondary schools and other state institutions that offer vocational
training.Vocational correctional education programs are eligible to apply for a share
of this aid, but states may only use up to 1 percent of their total Perkins allocation
for aid to correctional facilities, severely limiting the funds available for vocational
programs in prisons. Prior to the 1998 reauthorization of the Perkins Act, states were
actually required to spend at least that 1 percent of their allocation on institutional
programs, but they are now prevented from spending any additional funds beyond
that amount (Spangenberg 2004). The Perkins Act is due for reauthorization by the
109th Congress, and the version of the reauthorization bill passed by the House and
under consideration by the Senate as of October 2005 maintains this 1 percent ceiling
(Library of Congress 2005).
The debate around providing Pell Grants to prisoners is a central issue in considering
federal funding for postsecondary correctional education. The elimination of prisoner
eligibility for Pell Grants in 1994 was a severe blow to postsecondary correctional
education programs nationwide, and many advocates of higher education for prisoners
have focused their efforts on reinstating this funding. Dallas Pell, daughter of Senator
Claiborne Pell, for whom the Pell Grants were named, leads the Pell Grants for Public
Safety Initiative, a group that advocates restoration of the grants to the incarcerated
(Martin 2005). The prisoner advocacy group CURE (Citizens United for the
Rehabilitation of Errants) has also proposed amending the Higher Education Act to
reinstate prisoner eligibility for Pell Grants (CURE-NY 2005). Despite these advocacy

Learning to Reduce Recidivism

efforts, little progress has been made as yet, and the question remains whether efforts to
reinstate the Pell Grants are the most effective use of advocacy resources.
In the 40 years since the initial passage of the Higher Education Act, the federal
government has taken a key role in ensuring broad access to postsecondary education
in the United States. Given that the prison population is dominated by young men,
racial and ethnic minorities, and the economically disadvantaged—groups already
underrepresented in American colleges and universities—it does seem entirely reasonable
to allow prisoners access to Pell Grants and other forms of federal student aid. In fact,
individuals held in local jails or half-way houses or sentenced to home or weekend-only
detention are eligible for federal student aid. Only those men and women incarcerated
in state and federal prisons have been ruled ineligible, a policy that leads to a disparate
negative impact on the students who most need this aid. Research
suggesting that higher education for prisoners reduces recidivism
. . . it does seem entirely
and improves the likelihood of successful re-entry into society
after release adds additional weight to the argument that prisoners
reasonable to allow
should be eligible for Pell Grants.

prisoners access to Pell

On the other hand, the current emphasis on cost-cutting to reduce
Grants and other forms of
the federal budget deficit, as well as the continued importance of
“tough-on-crime” political stances, makes it seem unlikely that
federal student aid.
Congress will consider expanding the Pell Grant program to once
again include prisoners. In July 2005, for example, the House
Committee on Education and the Workforce rejected an amendment to the College
Access and Opportunity Act that would have restored eligibility for federal student aid for
individuals convicted of drug possession or sale (Sen 2005). This situation suggests that it
may be time for advocates of postsecondary correctional education to extend their efforts
in other directions, including expanding the Incarcerated Youth Offender grant program
and encouraging state legislators to implement or increase funding for postsecondary
correctional educational programs in their state prison systems.

Private funding
The lack of federal funds for postsecondary correctional education has led state prison
systems to explore other options, including private funding. In some states, turning to
private funding is a necessity because of statutory constraints on the use of state funds for
educating prisoners. For example, as of 2003, Minnesota ended state support for higher
education programs in its prisons. Other states allow state funding for such programs but
only with restrictions. In Washington, the state will fund a single one-year postsecondary
vocational certificate program for each prisoner. Further postsecondary education, whether
vocational or academic, must be privately funded. In this sort of legislative environment,
private funding becomes a crucial means of funding postsecondary programs for prisoners.

Prisoner self-funding
The most common form of private funding comes from prisoners themselves or from
their families, many of whom are unwilling or unable to provide much financial support

29

30

Learning to Reduce Recidivism

to the prisoner. In most prison systems, inmates with sufficient funds to cover tuition,
fees, and postage can take postsecondary correspondence courses. Because many prison
systems do not keep records of inmates who are taking correspondence courses, it is
difficult to know the full extent to which prisoners are self-funding their higher education.
It is worth noting, however, that correspondence courses can be relatively expensive. The
Ohio University College Program for the Incarcerated, for example, as of 2005-06 charges
$1,062 per semester—inclusive of tuition, textbooks and supplies, and postage—for a
prisoner to enroll in two correspondence courses (Ohio University 2005). Some prison
systems also use self-payments by prisoners to supplement state and federal funding for
on-site higher education programs. In Virginia, inmates who can afford the cost of tuition
and fees may enroll in the college courses offered on-site for prisoners who are funded by
the Incarcerated Youth Offender grant. In some cases, states make such courses available
at relatively low cost. Utah, for example, charges prisoners not funded by IYO grants
approximately $100 per semester for tuition and fees.
An argument can be made that requiring prisoners to cover the cost of their higher
education is only fair. After all, they would have to pay for college if they were not
incarcerated. Paying the full cost of college tuition and fees, however, is well beyond the
means of most prisoners. Wages for prison work vary significantly from state to state but are
typically quite low. As of 1997, almost three-quarters of prisoners reported having a work
assignment, either at the correctional facility or outside of it, but only 68 percent of these
prisoners—50 percent of all prisoners—were paid for their work. Wages were typically
below one dollar per hour with a median wage of 30 cents per hour, and prisoners worked,
on average, 28 hours each week. At this rate, the prisoners who earned any income at all
received approximately $8.40 per week or $33.60 per month. Prisoners who were paid by
the month reported only slightly higher wages—$42 per month on average (U.S. Dept. of
Justice 2001).
Even at a lower-cost community college, this amount of money would not go very far,
and educational costs are not the only expenses for which prisoners may be responsible. As
of 2002, 53 percent of U.S. prison systems charged inmates for room and board while 71
percent charged fees for medical services. Prisoners may also be required to pay for clothing,
phone calls and postage, books or magazines, food purchased from the prison canteen, and
in some states, toiletries such as shampoo or toothpaste. These costs are typically lower than
those outside the correctional setting—medical fees, for example, ranged from 50 cents to
$5 per visit as of 2002—but basic expenses still consume a substantial portion of the money
earned by prisoners (American Correctional Association 2002).

Donations
Because of limitations on both public funding and prisoner self-funding, a number of
prison systems have turned to private donors to help support postsecondary correctional
educational programs. In Texas, for example, donors interested in helping prisoners
gain access to higher education, including corporate donors and advocacy groups, have
created scholarships through some of the public colleges and universities that provide
postsecondary instruction in the state’s prison system.Virginia has two private nonprofit
scholarship funds that cover the cost of tuition, fees, and textbooks for some inmates
taking college courses. One program is sponsored by the estate of a physician who was

Learning to Reduce Recidivism

incarcerated as a youth, and the other is funded by a foundation named for the first warden
at the Virginia Correctional Center for Women.
While most private funding sources are too limited to support the creation of new
postsecondary correctional education programs, as opposed to simply funding additional
students in already established programs, there may be potential in more active fundraising
efforts. In Oregon, for example, a private foundation called New Directions funds 26
percent of the state’s incarcerated college students, using funds donated by individuals,
businesses, and a local community college. Minnesota has also moved in this direction in
recent years (Box 4).

BOX 4: PRIVATE FUNDING FOR POSTSECONDARY CORRECTIONAL EDUCATION
In 2003, the Minnesota state legislature ended state funding for all academic postsecondary correctional education
programs in the state. While the Minnesota Department of Corrections has continued to maintain a vocational
postsecondary correctional education program, funded by the state and by a federal Incarcerated Youth Offender
grant, this action resulted in the elimination of a number of college programs in the state’s prisons. The legislature’s
action also, however, led to the creation of the Minnesota Correctional Education Foundation, described on its
website as “a statewide charity to establish, fund, and coordinate college and vocational opportunities at state
correctional facilities.” This new foundation, which hopes to revive higher education for prisoners in Minnesota, is
based on the belief that postsecondary education is a crucial means of helping prisoners develop into productive
citizens upon re-entry into their communities.
The central goal of this private, nonprofit foundation is to raise sufficient funds to offer postsecondary courses,
leading to associate’s degrees, to 350 or more prisoners at five correctional facilities each year. Early fundraising
efforts have met with a good response from individual donors, including some able to make substantial gifts to the
foundation, but have been less well received by major charities, many of which do not support higher education for
prisoners. As a result, the foundation’s leaders have come to realize that a secondary goal for the foundation must be
to educate philanthropists and the public about the value of postsecondary correctional education.
Starting in Fall 2005, postsecondary courses funded by the foundation will be offered at two Minnesota prisons.
Content and instructors for these courses will be provided by the newly created Correctional Higher Education
Consortium, but the program as a whole will be coordinated by Inver Hills Community College, which also will be
the degree-granting institution. Several of the colleges in the consortium are private, nonprofit institutions and will
be able to donate some of the costs of instruction. Each course offered by the program will be compatible with the
Minnesota Transfer Curriculum so that prisoners who do not complete a degree while incarcerated can transfer their
credits to a college after release.
One of the most crucial factors in developing this foundation has been the close partnerships established with the
Department of Corrections and the Correctional Higher Education Consortium. The state Commissioner of Corrections
and the President of Inver Hills Community College are both members of the foundation’s board of directors, as are a
number of business leaders and the CEO of MINCORR, the state’s prison industries group, all of whom can offer advice
about Minnesota’s workforce needs. The intent of this public-private partnership is to strengthen postsecondary
correctional education in Minnesota by diversifying available funding, providing high quality educational programs
in the state’s prisons, and above all, by creating an ongoing and sustainable source of support for higher education
for prisoners.

31

32

Learning to Reduce Recidivism

State funding
Private funding, while valuable as a supplement to public funding, is unlikely to be
sufficient to fully fund a large postsecondary correctional education program. State
funding, on the other hand, seems to be essential to the success of such programs.
State funding can, in fact, be seen as a proxy for overall state support for postsecondary
correctional education. The states that adequately fund postsecondary programs in
their prisons tend to also be the states that recognize the benefits such programs can
have in reducing recidivism and saving money for the state’s taxpayers. In the Institute
survey, for example, two-thirds of the state prison systems enrolling at least 1,000
prisoners in postsecondary programs reported getting more than half their funding from
appropriations for the state corrections agency. Beyond direct appropriations, furthermore,
states can support postsecondary correctional education by
ensuring that public colleges and universities are able to include
The states that adequately fund
incarcerated students in any headcounts used for state formula
funding and that incarcerated students are eligible for any state
postsecondary programs in their
need-based financial aid.

prisons tend to also be the states

State need-based financial aid for college students can, in fact, be
a vital source of funding for postsecondary correctional education.
Most states offer such grants, and while some have followed the
programs can have in reducing
federal government in excluding incarcerated individuals from
eligibility, many have not. In Texas, for example, nearly 5 percent
recidivism and saving money for
of the annual funding for postsecondary correctional education
the state’s taxpayers.
comes from the Texas Public Education Grants. These grants, based
solely on financial need, are provided to prisoners through the
public colleges and universities that offer instruction in the state’s prisons. Participation in
this grant program, as with most other state need-based aid, requires completion of the
Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA), a complex form that can intimidate
even those familiar with higher education. Moreover, since inmates of state and federal
prisons are not eligible for federal student aid, they may not appreciate the need to fill
out the FAFSA. In order to take advantage of state need-based aid, where available, prison
systems must ensure that prisoners are aware of the FAFSA and have access to assistance
in completing it. Prisons could, for example, hold FAFSA workshops prior to their state’s
priority deadline for need-based aid.

that recognize the benefits such

In Texas, some prisoners can also benefit from the Hazlewood Act, which offers
exemptions from tuition and some fees at the state’s public colleges and universities to
honorably discharged veterans who were Texas residents at the time of their enlistment.
These benefits for veterans provide nearly 6 percent of the funding for postsecondary
education in Texas. Some incarcerated veterans are also eligible for education benefits
through the Montgomery G.I. Bill or the Veterans Educational Assistance Program, federal
programs that have not eliminated funding for prisoners, although such funds can only be
used to pay for tuition, fees, and books. The Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that, as of
1998, there were more than 150,000 veterans incarcerated in state or federal prisons, 83
percent of whom had been honorably discharged and so could potentially be eligible for
federal or state educational programs for veterans (Mumola 2000b). As in the case of state
need-based grants, prison systems can benefit by making prisoners who are veterans aware

Learning to Reduce Recidivism

of the possibility of receiving funding and providing them with assistance in filing the
correct paperwork.
One of the most effective ways to provide state support for postsecondary correctional
education is to create partnerships between state corrections agencies and public colleges
or universities. An excellent example of this type of partnership can be found in North
Carolina, where long-term administrative and financial cooperation between the
Department of Corrections and the North Carolina Community College System has led
to a flourishing postsecondary correctional educational program. Similarly, in Nevada,
community colleges provide tuition waivers for a third of the state’s incarcerated students,
enabling the state’s prison system to meet minimum enrollment numbers needed to keep
their postsecondary program operational. In this case, providing financial aid is beneficial to
both the Department of Corrections and to the community colleges, all of which would
lose funding opportunities if the postsecondary correctional educational program were
forced to shut down. California is another state that has begun to explore the benefits
of this sort of arrangement by establishing a partnership between the Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation and the California Community College System (Box 5).
Community colleges may, indeed, be a particularly valuable ally for correctional educators.
Community colleges are typically found throughout the state, even in the geographically
isolated areas in which prisons are often located, and many community colleges consider
broad access to higher education a key part of their mission. Furthermore, community
colleges with open-door admissions policies generally have considerable experience
providing placement testing and remedial coursework for academically underprepared
students, which makes them ideal instructional providers for prison systems where many
students may need such assistance.
Since community colleges usually serve, and are often at least partially funded by, a local
community, it may be difficult to persuade local residents that their tax dollars should be
used to educate prison inmates. States can, however, counter such objections by providing
formula funding to community colleges based on the number of incarcerated students the
colleges serve and by explicitly including incarcerated students in statewide accountability
reporting requirements for community colleges. In Texas, for example, incarcerated
students are classified as a special population served by the state’s community colleges, and
the annual reports compiled by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board provide
details on enrollment, remediation, and completions for all incarcerated students in the
community college system. This accountability demonstrates the colleges’ commitment to
serve these students just as they serve other special populations such as the economically
disadvantaged or those with limited English proficiency (Texas Higher Education
Coordinating Board 2004).

Future funding
The most important message to be found in the current funding of postsecondary
correctional education programs is the importance of cultivating diverse funding sources.
One of the reasons the loss of the Pell Grants in 1994 was so devastating is that some states
relied solely on Pell money to fund their postsecondary correctional education programs. If

33

34

Learning to Reduce Recidivism

the federal Incarcerated Youth Offender grants were to be eliminated at some point in the
near future, a number of states would find their college programs in similarly precarious
positions. However, most of the states enrolling at least 1,000 prisoners in postsecondary
programs would be able to continue these programs because IYO funds play only a
part, and often quite a small part, in their overall budgets for correctional education. In
fact, state funding may be even more important than federal funding because it reflects
a commitment by state policymakers to postsecondary correctional education. Private
funding also has a role to play and, as Minnesota’s example shows, fundraising can be a

BOX 5: PARTNERSHIPS FOR POSTSECONDARY CORRECTIONAL EDUCATION
California, in the early 1980s, was one the nation’s leaders in postsecondary correctional educational, enrolling
more than 5 percent of its prisoners in postsecondary programs (Ryan & Woodard 1987). By 1995, however, all
postsecondary correctional educational programs in the state had been eliminated—the victims of state budget
cuts and the loss of the Pell Grants (Wees 1995). From 1996 to 2001, the only program offering higher education for
prisoners in California was the Prison University Project, a nonprofit partnership between Patten University and San
Quentin State Prison. The program was funded entirely by donations and relied on volunteer labor to provide on-site
instruction leading to an associate’s degree in liberal arts (Prison University Project 2005).
As recently as 2003-04, the situation remained problematic. California was able to enroll more than 4,200 prisoners
(just over 1 percent of its total prison population) in postsecondary programs during the 2003-04 academic year,
and 70 prisoners earned associate’s degrees. However, nearly two-thirds of these incarcerated students were taking
self-funded correspondence courses, and no direct state funding was available for postsecondary correctional
education. Only three of the state’s 109 community colleges were involved in providing instruction for postsecondary
correctional education programs at four state prisons.
Today, all that is changing. As part of a statutory mandate requiring a new focus on rehabilitation, California’s
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has formed a partnership with the California Community Colleges
Chancellor’s Office to bring affordable postsecondary correctional education to the state’s prison system. Spring
2005 saw the addition of four new community college/prison partnerships with several more planned for the
2005-06 academic year. Coastline Community College enrolled 2,000 incarcerated students in 2005, a 300
percent increase over the previous year. Coastline also is initiating a pilot program that will bring college-level
courses to nine California prisons in 2005-06, enrolling an additional 450 incarcerated students in the first
semester alone. Much of the instruction for these programs will be provided through distance education, using both
interactive and one-way satellite transmission of course content, supplemented by on-site visits from instructors
and college counselors.
The California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office has been a major source of financial support for this program.
Incarcerated students are eligible for the Board of Governor’s Fee Waivers, a need-based program available to
California residents with incomes below $14,000 for one person, a qualification met by the vast majority of
prisoners. Other state programs also may be sources of funding. Palo Verde College’s program at the Ironwood
and Chuckawalla Valley State Prisons, for example, uses funding from the Extended Opportunity Program and
Services (EOPS), a state program intended to increase enrollment and retention of academically and economically
challenged students, to cover the costs of textbooks and counseling services. This Palo Verde College postsecondary
correctional education program, which has been in existence since 2001 and had 47 prisoners receive associate’s
degrees in May 2004, is the model used to develop new partnerships in California.

Learning to Reduce Recidivism

means of educating policymakers and the public about what postsecondary correctional
education can do for the state.
Minnesota’s idea of developing a foundation to fund postsecondary correctional education
also demonstrates creative thinking to address the challenges of finding new funding
sources. Prison systems in states such as California and Texas, which work in partnership
with their state’s public colleges and universities and make effective use of state need-based
financial aid programs, reflect the sort of creative thinking that can lead to sustainable
postsecondary correctional education programs. Prison reform advocates also have
supplied creative ideas. One such advocate, Jon M. Taylor, himself a prison inmate who
earned his degree while incarcerated, has suggested that prisoners be allowed to participate
in the AmeriCorps community service program while incarcerated, substituting
service work such as building houses for the poor or tutoring in their own prison’s
literacy or GED preparation programs for more traditional prison work assignments.
Prisoners involved in this program would not receive a stipend for room and board from
AmeriCorps, since theirs is already covered by the state, but would receive the educational
grant offered for the completion of a successful term of community service (Taylor
2005). This sort of proposal opens new directions for thinking about how to fund higher
education for prisoners.

35

Learning to Reduce Recidivism

CHAPTE R 5 :

Barriers to Accessing
Postsecondary Correctional
Education

T

he primary barrier preventing prisoners from gaining access to higher education is a
serious lack of funding, as discussed in the previous chapter. Nonetheless, even when
funding is available, other significant barriers remain that prevent prison systems from
offering postsecondary correctional education to eligible prisoners. These barriers include
the disadvantaged academic background of most prisoners, structural and institutional
obstacles within prison systems that prevent prisoners from enrolling in and completing
postsecondary programs, and opposition to postsecondary correctional education among
policymakers and the public. Eliminating these often complex and deeply embedded
barriers will require new and innovative policies at the state and institutional levels.

The need for remedial education
Correctional educators indicate that prisoners are, in general, very enthusiastic about
getting a college education. For many prisoners, earning a postsecondary credential seems
like a potentially life-changing opportunity with the promise of employment at decent
wages after release. Unfortunately, however, many prisoners are not academically prepared
for college-level courses. As previously noted, almost 40 percent of state prison inmates
have not completed high school or earned a GED. As a result, in most prison systems,
much of the funding available for educational programs is spent on Adult Basic Education
and on GED preparation, leaving little extra for postsecondary courses.
Even among those prisoners who do have a high school diploma or GED, there is often
substantial need for remediation, especially in English and math. In Texas, 29 percent of
incarcerated first-time community college students in Fall 2002 required remediation
(Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board 2004). As of 2003-04, Hawaii reported that
63 percent of its inmates who hold a high school diploma or a GED had reading scores
below the GED level on the Test of Adult Basic Education. In addition, as of 1997, 10
percent of prisoners nationwide reported having a learning disability, adding to the number
of students who may need additional assistance (Harlow 2003). Some prison systems,
especially those that rely on correspondence courses, simply require that prisoners be able
to meet college-entrance requirements before being allowed to enroll, but such policies
exclude many potential postsecondary students.

37

38

Learning to Reduce Recidivism

There is, of course, no easy solution to this problem. Incarcerated men and women
represent a population that has largely been failed by the K-12 education system, and
simple possession of a secondary credential does not mean that a prisoner is ready for
postsecondary schooling. The situation does underscore the need for prison systems to
test for learning disabilities and for academic readiness prior to enrollment in college-level
classes, even when a potential student has the necessary secondary credential, and to offer
remedial coursework, particularly in math and English, for those who are not yet ready
for postsecondary education. Community colleges with openaccess policies face similar challenges and make excellent partners
Prison systems that partner with
in postsecondary correctional education. Prison systems that
partner with community colleges can take advantage of existing
community colleges can take
testing and remediation strategies as a way to prepare prisoners for
advantage of existing testing
postsecondary work. The importance prisoners place on getting a
college education helps ease this process. In New Mexico, where
and remediation strategies as
prisoners are required to demonstrate a 10th grade reading level
before enrolling in college classes, the prospect of gaining access to
a way to prepare prisoners for
postsecondary education has encouraged inmates to make the effort
postsecondary work.
to complete necessary remedial work.

The challenges of delivering education in a prison
Offering higher education to prisoners requires an understanding of the complex
circumstances of incarceration. Prisoners cannot, as a rule, leave the facility to attend classes;
teachers must come to them, either directly or via distance-learning technology. Prisoners
are also subject to innumerable restrictions that make taking classes a challenge. They
usually cannot access the Internet, and if a library is available, they may only be able to visit
it during certain limited hours. There may be restrictions on the number of books they
can keep in their cells. Even spiral notebooks, a standard school supply for most college
students, are often restricted because the metal binding could be used as a weapon.
Correctional educators also face unique challenges. If they teach on-site at a correctional
facility, they must face a daily gauntlet of metal detectors and pat-downs to get to their
classrooms. They must develop course content and assignments that accommodate the
many restrictions placed on their students, and they must adjust to the fact that these
students may miss class for a variety of reasons beyond their control, such as a parole
hearing or a visit from an attorney. All of these complications, for staff and students alike,
make it harder to deliver effective postsecondary correctional education and may, in fact,
lead some to conclude that the results are not worth the difficulties.

Staff resentment
The complications of providing education in a prison setting can be significantly eased
by supportive corrections staff. Such support is not, however, always available. Some
staff members express resentment that prisoners are being offered the opportunity to
attend college, an opportunity they may not have had themselves. Several Institute
survey respondents indicated that uncooperative corrections staff members can obstruct
postsecondary education programs, for example, by not releasing a prisoner from his cell

Learning to Reduce Recidivism

so that he can attend class or by confiscating a prisoner’s textbooks. In 2003, a local
chapter of the California Correctional Peace Officers Association undertook an active
campaign to end state-funded postsecondary programs at two state prisons and was, in
fact, able to persuade the warden at one facility to suspend the program (Warren 2003).
Such actions on the part of corrections staff create a tension within the facility and
make it even more difficult for postsecondary programs to continue.
One way to reduce resentment among corrections staff who
object to the idea of prisoners receiving a college education while
incarcerated is to make postsecondary educational programming
available to them, as well as to prisoners. This approach, which
makes use of already available instructors, textbooks, classrooms, and
equipment, allows correctional facilities to offer low-cost professional
development opportunities to staff members who can, in turn,
use their new skills to function more effectively in the corrections
environment (Taylor 1992). In New Mexico, for example, the
computer labs used for distance-education programs are open to
corrections staff at designated hours, and the state subsidizes their
tuition and fees just as it does that of prisoners. As of yet, corrections
staff members in New Mexico have not taken advantage of this
opportunity, but in Arkansas, several staff members have enrolled in
college courses through the program offered in its prison system.

One way to reduce resentment
among corrections staff who
object to the idea of prisoners
receiving a college education
while incarcerated is to make
postsecondary educational
programming available to them,
as well as to prisoners.

Logistics and security
For security reasons, prisons are often built in geographically isolated areas. As a result,
a number of state correctional education coordinators indicated on their survey
responses that they have trouble finding local colleges and universities with which to
form partnerships. They also find it difficult to hire and retain qualified instructors
for on-site programs. In Nevada, for example, a recent legislative requirement that
all postsecondary instructors must hold master’s degrees in their fields forced the
removal of a number of experienced vocational instructors in the state’s postsecondary
correctional education program.
Security concerns are also a constant challenge for correctional educators. At any time,
a correctional facility may initiate a “lock-down,” a condition that means all prisoners
are restricted to their housing units. Individual prisoners may be restricted in their
movements because of disciplinary infractions or an upcoming hearing, preventing
them from attending classes. Security concerns also lead prison administrators to
ban a variety of equipment and substances that could be used as weapons or to
manufacture drugs. Chemistry lab courses are, for example, nearly impossible to hold in
a correctional facility.
One possible solution for many of the problems outlined above is a greater reliance
on advances in educational technology. Using computer simulations of chemistry
experiments might, for instance, make a lab course more feasible. Similarly, the use of
distance education can reduce the need to bring instructors into a remote correctional
facility. Some prison systems are already turning to distance learning for their

39

40

Learning to Reduce Recidivism

postsecondary programs. Of those responding to the Institute survey, 52 percent reported
using some distance education, primarily video or satellite instruction. An expansion of
these programs would be one way to offer more college classes to prisoners, provided that
funding was made available.
In recent years, distance learning in mainstream higher education has come to rely
heavily on the Internet as a means of disseminating course materials. This practice
does not hold true for prisons, however. Only six state prison systems—14 percent of
those responding to the survey—reported using Internet as a tool for postsecondary
correctional education. The primary limitations on such programs involve security
concerns. In many states, prisoners are forbidden to access the Internet, and
administrators fear that prisoners would take advantage of Internet-based courses to
engage in inappropriate or dangerous conduct. This limitation is a problem for survey
respondents, several of whom noted that using available Internet technology to create
secure distance education networks would enable them to provide relatively low-cost
college classes for a larger number of students. At the moment, security concerns seem
to outweigh this opportunity in most prison systems. The success of experiments with
Internet-based classes in correctional facilities, such as the one currently underway in
New Mexico (Box 6), provides hope that corrections officials will be more willing to try
this technology in the future.

Overcrowding and transfers
At the end of 2003, 22 states and the federal prison system were operating at or above
capacity, and an additional 20 state prison systems were near capacity (Harrison & Beck
2004). This overcrowding in correctional facilities has resulted in frequent involuntary
transfers of prisoners. In Alaska and Hawaii, for example, prisoners are routinely
transferred out of state due to space shortages. Washington state reported that, because
of budget constraints, prisoners are transferred from higher-security to lower-security
facilities as soon as they become eligible. These transfers can be very disruptive for a
prisoner who is enrolled in a postsecondary education program. If the transfer occurs
in the middle of a semester and the prisoner’s new facility does not offer the same
class, as is often the case, the prisoner will be forced to withdraw. Even in the case of
correspondence students, the transfer may interrupt progress in completing the class,
especially if the new facility has different policies on offering such courses.
In an effort to overcome this problem, some states have begun to develop policies
and articulation agreements that will enable prisoners to move between correctional
facilities without being forced to drop a course. In Washington, for example, prisoners are
allowed to enroll in state-funded one-year vocational certificate programs, but program
completions have been very low, in part because of involuntary transfers. The State
Board for Community and Technical Colleges, which administers the postsecondary
correctional education program, has begun working with colleges to standardize
curriculum and course materials so that prisoners who are transferred can continue their
class in the new facility. This process has been a slow one, and only partially successful
because inmates often are moved to prisons that do not offer the course in which
they were previously enrolled. Nonetheless, the state has succeeded in standardizing its
information technology and welding programs and is working to standardize others.

Learning to Reduce Recidivism

BOX 6: INTERNET-BASED DISTANCE EDUCATION
With only 6,223 prisoners as of December 2003 (Harrison & Beck 2004), New Mexico’s demand for postsecondary
correctional education is relatively small. As a result, correctional facilities were traditionally left to negotiate
individual contracts with local community colleges to provide on-site postsecondary instruction. In 2001, however,
corrections officials began to question this practice, citing problems with low course completion rates as well as
difficulties maintaining programs in remote areas. Within a year, the New Mexico Department of Corrections had
implemented an interactive distance education program in the state’s prisons.
The Internet-based program delivers courses from Eastern New Mexico University-Roswell to nine New Mexico
correctional facilities, each of which has been fitted with lab space, computers, and a secure, high-speed network
connection to a computer server at the university. Prisoners enrolled in these classes are not able to actually access
the Internet to send email or view external websites. Because security issues have been a major concern about this
program, care has been taken to ensure that such access will not be available, and to date, no security breaches
have occurred. Incarcerated students also do not have direct contact with their instructors. Instead, the Department
of Corrections has hired 14 full-time facilitators with college degrees to monitor the classes, answer questions, and
pass messages between faculty and students, if necessary.
The program offers 57 different courses and has enrolled nearly 400 prisoners. Students are just beginning to
receive degrees through the program. The first graduate received his associate’s degree in December 2004, two
prisoners graduated in May 2005, and nine more applied for summer 2005 graduation. Because the distance
education program is so new, only associate’s degrees are currently offered. Students may matriculate in either
University Studies or Business Administration, with a majority currently choosing the University Studies track. In Fall
2006, an associate’s degree in Computer Information Systems will be added to the curriculum. As more prisoners
receive their associate’s degrees, the program will expand degree offerings to include bachelor’s degrees.
Before enrolling in a course, prisoners sign an agreement outlining their responsibilities. If they fail to maintain a
2.5 grade point average or if they are transferred to a higher security facility for disciplinary reasons, the cost of
their tuition and books must be repaid before they may enroll in additional college courses. As a result of this policy,
course completion rates have risen from 50 percent to 90 percent. The high number of correctional facilities offering
this program has contributed to the improved course completion rate as well. Under this system, when prisoners
are moved to another facility through no fault of their own, they may immediately enroll in the same course with the
same instructor at their new facility.
The cost of this program is covered almost entirely by the state Department of Corrections. Along with paying for
building and maintaining the computer labs and paying the salaries of the facilitators, the department pays Eastern
New Mexico University-Roswell approximately $215,000 annually to cover tuition, fees, and books for the 400
incarcerated students (at a cost of only about $500 per student) and to cover the expense of administering the
program and converting existing distance education courses for use in prisons. The university is also eligible for
state formula funding for each incarcerated student.
Ultimately, the state envisions this program existing at all state prisons as well as at several privately-operated
prisons in the state. Corrections officials believe that it is an efficient use of state funds, especially since more
prisoners graduate and are better equipped to seek employment after their release from prison. The program’s
success is also a strong indication that Internet-based distance education can work in prisons, despite the many
security concerns raised by corrections officials. New Mexico’s model is one that can and should be emulated by
other states, especially states with smaller and more geographically dispersed prison systems for which traditional
postsecondary correctional education programs can be prohibitively expensive.

41

42

Learning to Reduce Recidivism

Organizational issues
The ability of state prison systems to develop policies that facilitate prisoner enrollment in
and completion of postsecondary programs is limited by the often complex relationships
between corrections staff and correctional educators, who in some states do not even work
for the same agency. In most states, correctional education is a department within the
state agency responsible for corrections. In some states, however, a separate agency, with its
own set of administrators and policies, is responsible for correctional education, frequently
through a correctional school district. In a few states, correctional education is actually
administered by the state’s education agency. These multiple agencies can create additional
layers of bureaucracy and sometimes have conflicting priorities. Corrections officials, for
instance, may be more concerned with prison security than with correctional education. In
any case, corrections officials and correctional educators must have a
strong working relationship if postsecondary correctional education
. . . corrections officials
programs are to succeed. Strong relationships can overcome some
of the problems mentioned above. In Texas, for example, prisoners
and correctional educators
enrolled in college courses are rarely transferred to another facility,
and if they are, it is an easy matter for officials in the correctional
must have a strong working
school district to get them quickly transferred back.

relationship if postsecondary

Interagency relationships are only part of the picture, however. In
many states, even if correctional education is administered by the
corrections agency, the actual authority to permit a postsecondary
programs are to succeed.
program at a particular correctional facility lies with the warden
of that facility. If the warden objects to the use of public funds to
pay for college classes, no program will be offered even if money is available. As a result,
many states have postsecondary programs only in certain correctional facilities, and those
may be eliminated at any time if a new warden objects. Similarly, policies regarding
correspondence courses, use of the prison library, and possession of textbooks and other
materials often vary from prison to prison within a state. These problems point to the need
for clear and consistent policies at the state level. The states with the largest postsecondary
correctional education programs—Texas and North Carolina—have both a culture of
commitment to correctional education within their corrections agencies and clearlydefined policies that apply to all correctional facilities, enabling and even requiring them to
offer higher education to prisoners.

correctional education

An additional organizational complication stems from the fact that postsecondary
education must be offered by a degree-granting institution if incarcerated students are
to receive a credential at the end of their studies or at least be able to transfer the college
credit they have earned once they are released. In many states, correctional education at
the Adult Basic Education and GED levels is administered entirely in-house, with classes
taught by corrections employees. Offering college courses requires the involvement of an
external educational institution.
In many states, the process of negotiating with a local college or university to provide
instruction is left to each correctional facility, just as the authority to even allow
postsecondary programs rests with some wardens. This process is a challenging one, and a
number of states reported that it puts a heavy burden on the already short-staffed facilities.

Learning to Reduce Recidivism

States with larger postsecondary enrollments have solved this problem by centralizing
the process. In Washington, for example, the Department of Corrections contracts with
the State Board for Community and Technical Colleges to administer the for-credit
vocational certificate programs offered to prisoners. North Carolina has taken this process
a step further by creating a formal interagency partnership between the Department of
Corrections and the North Carolina Community College System in which each partner
has clearly delineated responsibilities and each pays a portion of the cost of providing
postsecondary education to the state’s prison population.

Opposition from policymakers and the public
Some survey respondents noted that policymakers in their states are not especially
supportive of offering higher education to prisoners. In many cases, this lack of support is
demonstrated by reduced funding, or no funding, for postsecondary correctional education
programs. Without support from legislators and other state officials, expanding or even
maintaining higher education programs for prisoners can be virtually impossible.
Public opinion, however, seems to be moving toward a more supportive
Without support from
view of prison programming. In 2002, a study funded by the Open
legislators and other state
Society Institute found that 66 percent of Americans want the criminal
justice system to emphasize the rehabilitation of prisoners through
officials, expanding or even
education or job training programs rather than simply using prisons
as a place to “warehouse” people who will eventually be released
maintaining higher education
back into their communities. On the other hand, 55 percent of those
surveyed believe that current efforts to rehabilitate prisoners have been
programs for prisoners can
unsuccessful, a belief supported by high recidivism rates (Peter D. Hart
be virtually impossible.
Research Associates 2002). This perspective on incarceration marks a
major shift in public opinion away from the “tough-on-crime” rhetoric
of recent decades. It also suggests that the public—and the policymakers
they influence—may soon be ready to support higher education for prisoners but only if
presented with evidence that postsecondary correctional education works.
As it stands, much of the public attention paid to postsecondary correctional education
programs has been negative. While the issue has not had much attention since the debate
over Pell Grant eligibility a decade ago, occasional newspaper stories with headlines like
“Wife-killer learns his way out of prison”—reporting on an Indiana man who reduced
his sentence by using “good time” credits offered to prisoners who complete educational
programs—do not help clarify public perceptions (Higgins 2005). The truth is that
postsecondary correctional education has a public relations problem. The public is not,
for the most part, aware that such programs have been shown to reduce recidivism and
save tax dollars, that prison systems tend to emphasize vocational education and the
acquisition of job skills, and that many states apply fairly stringent eligibility requirements
when deciding which prisoners should be able to take advantage of postsecondary
educational opportunities.
Gaining support for postsecondary correctional education will require increased
public awareness of these issues. The information is certainly available; the last few

43

44

Learning to Reduce Recidivism

years have seen the publication of a number of important recidivism studies and costbenefit analyses. Interesting the media and the public in these studies has been a far
more challenging matter. To reach the widest audience, advocates of higher education
for prisoners could find common cause with the range of groups whose interests this
issue touches—from criminal justice and higher education professionals to the many
nonprofit organizations that work to improve the lives of young minority men, the social
group most directly affected by both low rates of college attendance and high rates of
incarceration (LoBuglio 2003).
One potentially valuable approach to this public relations problem, as
researcher Stefan LoBuglio has noted, may be to emphasize the importance
of inmate accountability. This approach suggests that prisoners should be
be obligated to make
obligated to make some attempt at self-improvement while incarcerated.
some attempt at selfParticipation in educational programs, together with work assignments
and various treatment programs, would actually be mandatory during
improvement while
incarceration (LoBuglio 2003). Rather than thinking of postsecondary
correctional education as a reward for committing a crime, which is the
incarcerated.
way some policymakers have described it, this perspective views education
as part of a larger effort on the part of the criminal justice system to
require prisoners to make some contribution in return for their room and board and to
try to ensure that formerly incarcerated people, after release from prison, have the skills
and attitudes necessary to become productive citizens. As currently practiced, inmate
accountability usually also includes a requirement that prisoners reimburse the prison
system for their room and board and any programs or treatment they receive (Box 7). Such
reimbursement requirements make sense only if ex-offenders can reasonably be expected
to find employment at decent wages after release from prison.

. . . prisoners should

The need for state-level support
As the discussions in this chapter and the last illustrate, overcoming the barriers that
prevent prisoners from gaining access to higher education will be a challenging process.
These barriers are influenced by a variety of factors ranging from the severely inadequate
funding of most postsecondary correctional education programs to exacting security
issues in prisons and the poor academic preparation of many prisoners. The most
significant issue, however, is one of state-level support for postsecondary correctional
education programs.
State-level support—particularly from corrections officials and elected officials—fosters the
success of well-established higher enrollment postsecondary programs like those in Texas
and North Carolina and innovative experiments like New Mexico’s distance-education
program. In most states, such support is not present. Lack of state-level support makes it
nearly impossible for correctional educators to find sufficient funding and to overcome
institutional barriers. Developing effective postsecondary correctional education programs
in these states will require building consensus and commitment among all stakeholders
as well as visionary leadership. Leaders must be willing to commit substantial financial
resources for creative new solutions to the many challenges that obstruct delivery of higher
education to prisoners.

Learning to Reduce Recidivism

BOX 7: INMATE ACCOUNTABILITY
As prison systems are confronted with the need to educate inmates as a part of efforts to reduce recidivism but
at the same time face reduced state funding, one alternative to eliminating programs is to shift the burden of
payment to the prisoners themselves. As previously noted, however, most prisoners have very little money of
their own and, most often, few family resources on which to rely. In an effort to solve this problem and respond
to a legislative mandate, Texas has developed a program in which the state pays for college courses for qualified
prisoners but requires repayment after release. This program emphasizes the need for inmate accountability while
still recognizing that most prisoners cannot pay for a college education while in prison but may be able to pay after
release, especially if they are able to obtain better jobs using their newly gained credentials.
The state of Texas has one of the largest prison system in the country—136 correctional facilities incarcerating
nearly 167,000 people as of December 2003 (Harrison & Beck 2004). Correctional education has been a key
component of the Texas prison system for many years. In 1969, the Texas legislature established the Windham
School District with the motto: “Fighting Crime Through Education.” Despite a recent 19 percent budget cut, Windham
School District remains one of the largest correctional education agencies in the nation with 1,300 staff members
and nearly 85,000 students each year at all educational levels.
In the 2003-2004 academic year, 46 Texas correctional facilities offered postsecondary education for 9,694
prisoners—about 6 percent of the state’s prison population. Nearly two-thirds of these incarcerated students were
working toward associate’s degrees, and most others were enrolled in vocational certificate programs. Texas had a
24 percent completion rate for its postsecondary program, one of the highest seen in this study, and in 2003-04,
awarded 1,885 vocational certificates, 415 associate’s degrees, 58 bachelor’s degrees, and 22 master’s degrees.
Fifteen public two-year colleges and three public universities provided postsecondary education for prisoners. These
colleges and universities, in addition to tuition and fees, also receive formula funding from the state for incarcerated
students, and so the institutions actively recruit students for their prison programs.
Texas’s reimbursement program, started in 1996, creates an account for each incarcerated student and deducts
the cost of each course taken from the balance. When prisoners are released, they work with their parole officers to
negotiate a manageable payment plan. To date, 3,000 ex-offenders have paid their debt in full. About 25 percent of
the amount owed to the state—$1.1 million—has been repaid through monthly payments averaging about $100.
This money is funneled back into higher education programming in the state’s prisons; in 2003-04, more than
$250,000 was added to the budget through the reimbursement program.

45

Learning to Reduce Recidivism

Conclusions and Policy Implications

I

n America today, policymakers are often reluctant to take positions that could be labeled
“soft on crime.” From their perspective, the idea of offering higher education to
prisoners can be a hard sell. Nonetheless, research provides strong evidence that
postsecondary correctional education can improve conditions within correctional facilities,
enhance prisoner self-esteem and prospects for employment after release from prison, and
function as a cost-effective approach to reducing recidivism. Given the enormous number
of people incarcerated in the United States, the vast majority of whom will someday be
released and return to their communities, higher education for prisoners has considerable
potential to help ensure that these formerly incarcerated people are equipped to build
productive lives and remain out of prison. As this report shows, however, there are many
barriers that prevent most prisoners from gaining access to such educational opportunities.
New policy measures are necessary if these barriers are to be overcome, and creating such
measures requires a commitment from policymakers.
A decade after the loss of Pell Grant eligibility for state and federal prison inmates, the
number of prisoners enrolled in higher education programs has rebounded but remains
low compared to the overall prison population. As of 2003-04, more than 85,000
prisoners—just under 5 percent of the total prison population—were taking college
courses. The vast majority of these incarcerated students, however, came from only 15
prison systems. Prison systems with larger postsecondary enrollments tend to have sizeable
inmate populations, a focus on shorter vocational degree and certificate programs, and
substantial public funding for postsecondary correctional education. Moreover, with the
exception of for-credit vocational certificate programs, most prison systems have low
numbers of completed degrees, a serious concern considering the importance American
society places on achieving a postsecondary credential.
Lack of funding is the key barrier that prevents many state prison systems from enrolling
more prisoners in college courses. While state funding plays an essential role in higherenrollment prison systems, many lower-enrollment systems rely primarily on funding
from the federal Incarcerated Youth Offender Grants, a funding source that limits the
number of prisoners eligible for higher education programs and that depends on annual
renewal by Congress. In addition, prisoners frequently do not enroll in, and complete,
postsecondary programs because of poor academic preparation, logistical problems, and
state or institutional policies that make it difficult to provide higher education in prison.
Above all, lack of support from policymakers and the public makes each of these barriers
more challenging.
Additional funding is needed to increase the number of prisoners who have access to higher
education. At the federal level, Congress should reinstate Pell Grant eligibility for prisoners,
expand the Incarcerated Youth Offender Grant program, and eliminate the cap on the
use of Perkins Vocational–Technical Education Act funding for prison programs. As this
study shows, however, relying on federal funding for postsecondary educational programs

47

48

Learning to Reduce Recidivism

is not enough. Prison systems must diversify their funding sources by looking at ways
to solicit resources from foundations, colleges and universities, corporations, and private
individuals. At the same time, state policymakers, whose constituents benefit most from
reduced recidivism, should work to expand state funding by allocating additional funds to
the public colleges and universities that provide instruction for postsecondary correctional
education programs, by allowing prisoners to receive state grants for low-income students,
and by appropriating sufficient funds to allow state agencies to operate postsecondary
correctional education programs.
State-level support is essential if postsecondary correctional education programs are to thrive.
State prisons systems with larger postsecondary enrollments have developed partnerships
among the various state agencies responsible for corrections, correctional education, and
higher education. Community colleges, in particular, have been valuable allies in the effort
to offer college classes to prisoners. The work of such partnerships is enhanced when
corrections agencies are able to develop state and institutional policies that strongly support
postsecondary correctional education. For example, policies that reduce the number of
involuntary transfers, that encourage experiments with distance education methods, that
allow corrections staff to participate in college courses offered at correctional facilities,
and that recognize the need for placement testing and remedial education are all ways
to overcome the barriers that reduce higher education enrollments and completions
in the prison system. Support from elected officials and from state administrators in
corrections and postsecondary education is crucial to the ongoing success of postsecondary
correctional education in a state. States whose leaders acknowledge the potential value of
higher education for prisoners and offer financial and structural support are in a position to
develop stable and effective postsecondary correctional education programs.
Building state-level support for postsecondary correctional education will necessarily involve
educating policymakers and the public. This study—like others—suggests that postsecondary
correctional education programs are cost-effective ways to reduce recidivism, that
most prisoners are enrolled in educational programs intended to directly improve their
employment prospects after release from prison, and that prison systems are finding ways
to ensure that prisoners take a share of the financial responsibility for their own education.
Sharing this evidence with policymakers and the public will be essential if advocates for
postsecondary correctional education are to initiate a much-needed national dialogue
about the value of offering higher education to prisoners. In this effort, moreover,
advocates for postsecondary correctional education cannot work alone but will need to
enlist the support of the many organizations concerned about issues of both prisoner
rehabilitation and re-entry and access to higher education for disadvantaged groups.
Focusing on the concept of inmate accountability may be a way to overcome resistance to
the idea of offering higher education to prisoners.
There remains, however, room for hope. As this report has demonstrated, some incarcerated
men and women are getting a college education, and some prison systems are developing
innovative strategies for overcoming the many barriers that prevent prisoners from gaining
access to higher education. As a result, despite the tight state budgets of the last few years,
enrollment in postsecondary correctional education has returned to the levels seen before
the loss of the Pell Grants in 1994. With continued work and support, these numbers can
grow and bring added benefits both to prisoners themselves and to society as a whole.

Learning to Reduce Recidivism

References
American Correctional Association. 1997. Education Opportunities in Correctional
Settings. Corrections Compendium 22(9): 4-16.
———. 2002. Inmate Privileges and Fees for Service. Corrections Compendium 27(8): 8-26.
———. 2003. Adult Corrections Budgets. Corrections Compendium 28(12): 9-19.
Batiuk, Mary Ellen, et al. 2005. Disentangling the Effects of Correctional Education.
Criminal Justice 5(1): 55-75.
Bonczar, Thomas P. 2003. Prevalence of Imprisonment in the U.S. Population, 1974-2001.
Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Burt, Martha. 2000. A New Look at Homelessness in America. Transcript of First Tuesday
Forum Presentation. Washington, DC: Urban Institute. February 1. <www.urban.org>.
Catalano, Shannan M. 2004. Criminal Victimization, 2003. Washington, DC: Bureau of
Justice Statistics.
Chappell, Cathryn A. 2004. Post-Secondary Correctional Education and Recidivism: A
Meta-Analysis of Research Conducted 1990-1999. Journal of Correctional Education
55(2): 148-69.
Curry, Andrea, Karen Mills, and Janice Valdisera. 1998. 1997 Population Profile of the United
States. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.
CURE-NY. 2005. A Possible Correctional Education Amendment to the Federal Higher Education
Act. <users.bestweb.net/~cureny/edprtner.htm>.
Dalaker, Joseph, and Mary Naifeh. 1998. Poverty in the United States: 1997. Washington, DC:
U.S. Census Bureau.
Fine, Michelle, et al. 2001. Changing Minds:The Impact of College in a Maximum Security
Prison. New York: The Graduate Center of the City University of New York and
Bedford Hills Correctional Facility.
Gehring, Thom. 1997. Post-Secondary Education for Inmates: An Historical Inquiry.
Journal of Correctional Education, 48(2): 46-55.
Glaze, Lauren E., and Seri Palla. 2004. Probation and Parole in the United States, 2003.
Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Harlow, Caroline Wolf. 2003. Education and Correctional Populations. Washington, DC:
Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Harrison, Paige M., and Allen J. Beck. 2004. Prisoners in 2003. Washington, DC: Bureau of
Justice Statistics.

49

50

Learning to Reduce Recidivism

———. 2005. Prison and Jail Inmates at Midyear 2004. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice
Statistics.
Higgins, Michael. 2005. Wife-Killer Learns Way Out of Prison. Chicago Tribune. February 14.
Institute for Higher Education Policy. 1994. Pell Grants: Are Prisoners the Program’s
Biggest Problem? Policy Steps 1(1): 1-2, 7.
———. 2004. Investing in America’s Future:Why Student Aid Pays Off for Society and
Individuals. Washington, DC.
———. 2005. The Investment Payoff. Washington, DC.
Langan, Patrick A., and David J. Levin. 2002. Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1994.
Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Lawrence, Sarah, et al. 2002. The Practice and Promise of Prison Programming. Washington, DC:
Urban Institute.
Library of Congress. 2005. Thomas: Legislative Information on the Internet. <thomas.loc.gov>.
LoBuglio, Stefan. 2001. Time to Reframe Politics and Practices in Correctional Education.
The Annual Review of Adult Learning and Literacy. Volume 2. Cambridge, MA: National
Center for the Study of Adult Learning and Literacy.
Martin, Glenn. 2005. Pell Grants for Public Safety. National H.I.R.E. Network News 3(1): 3-5.
Mathur, Anita, et al. 2004. From Jobs to Careers: How California Community College Credentials
Pay Off for Welfare Recipients. Washington, DC: Center for Law and Social Policy.
Messemer, Jonathan. 2003. College Programs for Inmates: The Post-Pell Grant Era. Journal
of Correctional Education 54(1): 32-39.
Minnesota Correctional Education Foundation. <www.mcef.info/index.html>.
Mumola, Christopher. 2000a. Incarcerated Parents and Their Children. Washington, DC:
Bureau of Justice Statistics.
———. 2000b. Veterans in Prison or Jail. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Ohio University. 2005. College Program for the Incarcerated. <www.ohiou.edu/adultlearning/
incarc.htm>.
Peter D. Hart Research Associates. 2002. Changing Public Attitudes toward the Criminal Justice
System. New York, NY: Open Society Institute.
Prison University Project. 2005. <prisonuniversityproject.org/index.html>.
Ryan, T.A., and Joseph Clifton Woodard, Jr. 1987. Correctional Education: A State of the Art
Analysis. Washington, DC: National Institute of Corrections.
Schiraldi,Vincent, and Jason Ziedenberg. 2002. Cellblocks or Classrooms? The Funding of Higher
Education and Its Impact on African American Men. Washington, DC: Justice Policy Institute.
Sen, Sanhita. 2005. Law Targets Student Aid for Drug Crimes. Washington Post. August 30.

Learning to Reduce Recidivism

Spangenberg, Gail. 2004. Current Issues in Correctional Education. New York, NY: Council for
the Advancement of Adult Literacy.
Stephan, James J. 2004. State Prison Expenditures, 2001. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice
Statistics.
Stephan, James J., and Karberg, Jennifer C. 2003. Census of State and Federal Correctional
Facilities, 2000. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Steurer, Steven J., Smith, Linda, and Tracy, Alice. 2001. Education Reduces Crime:Three-State
Recidivism Study. Lanham, MD: Correctional Education Association.
Taylor, Jon M. 1992. Post-Secondary Correctional Education: An Evaluation of
Effectiveness and Efficiency. Journal of Correctional Education, 43(3): 132-41.
———. 1994. Should Prisoners Have Access to Collegiate Education? A Policy Issue.
Educational Policy, 8(3): 315-38.
———. 2005. Alternative Funding Options for Post-Secondary Correctional Education.
Journal of Correctional Education, 56(1): 6-17.
Texas Department of Criminal Justice. 2004. Fiscal Year 2005 Operating Budget. <www.tdcj.
state.tx.us>.
Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. 2003. Texas Public Community and Technical
Colleges 2003 Statewide Factbook. <www.thecb.state.tx.us>.
———. 2004. Texas Public Community and Technical Colleges 2004 Statewide Factbook.
<www.thecb.state.tx.us>.
Travis, Jeremy, Amy L. Solomon, and Michelle Waul. 2001. From Prison to Home:The
Dimensions and Consequences of Prisoner Reentry. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
U.S. Census Bureau. 1999. Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1999. Washington, DC.
———. 2004. United States General Demographic Characteristics: 2004. American
FactFinder. <factfinder.census.gov>.
U.S. Dept. of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. 2003. Title IV
Institutions, by Level and Control of Institution and State or Other Jurisdiction:
Academic Year 2003–04. Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). <nces.
ed.gov>.
U.S. Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics and Federal Bureau of Prisons. 2001.
Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Correctional Facilities, 1997. Ann Arbor, MI: InterUniversity Consortium for Political and Social Research.
Warren, Jenifer. 2003. Union Targets Inmates’ College Program. Los Angeles Times. May 10.
Wees, Greg. 1995. Corrections Education and Pell Grant Funding. Corrections Compendium
20(12): 10-23.
Western, Bruce,Vincent Schiraldi, and Jason Ziedenberg. 2003. Education and Incarceration.
Washington, DC: Justice Policy Institute.

51

52

Learning to Reduce Recidivism

Windham School District. 2004. Division of Continuing Education Post-Secondary Program.
<http://windhamschooldistrict.org/>.
Wright, Mary C. 2001. Pell Grants, Politics, and Penitentiary: Connections Between the
Development of U.S. Higher Education and Prisoner Post-Secondary Programs. Journal
of Correctional Education 52(1): 11-16.

Learning to Reduce Recidivism

Appendix
Survey Methodology
Correctional education administrators for each prison system were identified using the
Correctional Education Association’s 2004 Directory for Correctional Educators and a list of
Incarcerated Youth Offender state grant coordinators obtained from the U.S. Department
of Education. Preliminary telephone and email contacts were used to determine the
appropriate person to complete the survey for each prison system.
The survey instrument was designed with the assistance of an expert advisory group and
was reviewed by correctional education officials in several states. The survey was then sent
by both postal mail and email to the designated state and federal contacts in February 2005.
Recipients were asked to mail or fax the completed survey to the Institute for Higher
Education Policy by March 15. An additional copy of the survey was sent by email in late
March to those prison systems that had not yet responded, and follow-up phone calls were
made in April to non-respondents reminding them to complete the survey.
The survey closed at the end of April 2005 with 45 states and the Federal Bureau of
Prisons responding. States not responding to the survey were Florida, Kansas, Kentucky,
New Hampshire, and New York.

Survey Instrument
[[Note: This survey has been reformatted for publication.]

Prisoner Access to Postsecondary Education Survey
Name of Person Completing Survey:
Title:
Organization:
Address:
Telephone: (

)

Email:

Please feel free to explain or expand on your answers in the margins or on the back of the pages.

53

54

Learning to Reduce Recidivism

Definitions
Adult Correctional Facility includes all confinement facilities administered by state
or federal government or by private corporations primarily for state or federal
government, which are intended for adults but sometimes hold juveniles. This
term includes:
• Prisons, penitentiaries, and correctional institutions
• State-operated local detention facilities in Alaska, Connecticut, Delaware,
Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Vermont
This definition corresponds to that used by the Bureau of Justice Statistics for its
Census of State and Federal Adult Correctional Facilities.
Postsecondary Education is defined as either traditional/academic or vocational/
certificate coursework taken after a student receives a high school diploma or
GED, for which a student can receive college credit.
Traditional/Academic Coursework is coursework for college credit that leads to an
Associate’s degree (e.g. AA, AS), a Bachelor’s degree (e.g. BA, BS), or a Graduate
degree (e.g. MA, MS, JD, PhD).
Vocational/Certificate Coursework is coursework for college credit that leads to an
applied degree (e.g. AAS) or a certificate (e.g. certificate in auto mechanics).

1. How many adult correctional facilities in your state offered postsecondary education
courses or programs during the 2003-2004 academic year?

2. What percentage of these programs are vocational courses offered for college credit? If
exact numbers cannot be provided, please give your best estimate.

3. Please list the names of the postsecondary educational institutions that provided
instruction for any postsecondary education courses or programs offered.

4. What means were used to provide instruction for any postsecondary courses offered?
(Please check all that apply)
❑ On-site instruction

❑ Correspondence courses

❑ Video/satellite instruction
❑ One way
❑ Interactive

❑ Internet-based instruction
❑ One way
❑ Interactive

❑ Other, please specify

Learning to Reduce Recidivism

5. What percentage of your state’s adult correctional facilities population is believed to
possess either a high school diploma or GED?

6. In addition to possessing either a GED or high school diploma, what other factors
influence inmates’ eligibility to participate in postsecondary education programs? (Please
check all that apply for all adult correctional facilities in your state, even if eligibility
requirements vary among sites or programs)
Inmate’s age

Reason for incarceration

Length of incarceration

Length of time to release

Number of infractions
while incarcerated

Standardized test scores

Other, please specify
7. What is the total number of inmates who participated in institutionally-recognized
postsecondary education courses or programs in your state during the 2003-2004
academic year?

8. During the 2003-2004 academic year, how many inmates who fulfilled any eligibility
requirements were placed on postsecondary educational programming waitlists and
were unable to participate?

9. Does your state have a policy regarding inmate participation in postsecondary
education via correspondence courses?
❑ Yes (If yes, please include a copy of this policy when you return the survey)
❑ No
10. Please indicate the number of inmates in your state who participated in the
postsecondary education program types listed below during the 2003-2004 academic
year. This question is only concerned with inmates who took courses leading to college credit. If
exact numbers cannot be provided, please give your best estimate of the number or
percentage of inmates who participated in each of the following program types.
A. Total Traditional/Academic Community College/
Associate’s Degree Level
College or University/Bachelor’s Degree Level
Graduate School/Graduate or Professional Degree Level
B. Total Vocational/Certificate

55

56

Learning to Reduce Recidivism

11. Can inmates in your state be awarded degrees for postsecondary coursework completed
while incarcerated? (Please check one)
❑ Yes, while incarcerated
❑ Yes, but only after release
❑ No (skip question 12)
12. If inmates in your state can be awarded degrees, please indicate the number of degrees
awarded to inmates in the 2003-2004 academic year.
Associate’s Degree (e.g. AA, AS, AAS)
Bachelor’s Degree (e.g. BA, BS)
Graduate Degree (e.g. MA, MS, PhD)
Vocational Certificate
13. Please indicate the number of inmates in your state whose postsecondary education was
funded through each of the sources listed below. If exact numbers cannot be provided,
please give your best estimate of the number or percentage of inmates funded by these
sources during the 2003-2004 academic year.
Federal Incarcerated Youth Offender Grant
State Funding

Local Funding

College or University Funding
Private Funding (Foundation, Religious/Community Group,
Individual Donation)
Please specify

Personal or Family Finances
Other Funding Source
Please specify

14. Please use the following space or attach additional pages to provide any additional
comments about access to postsecondary education for prisoners in your state. In
particular, we would be interested to know more about the following topics:
• Any special funding sources that help provide postsecondary education for
prisoners in your state
• Any particular challenges in providing postsecondary education for prisoners
(financial, political, administrative, logistical, etc.)
• Any innovative means of providing access to postsecondary education for prisoners
in your state
If you have brochures, program descriptions, or policy documents about postsecondary
education in your state facilities, we would appreciate it if you would include copies of
them with this survey. Thank you!