THE USE OF CRIMINAL
HISTORY RECORDS IN
COLLEGE ADMISSIONS

RECONSIDERED

THE USE OF CRIMINAL
HISTORY RECORDS IN
COLLEGE ADMISSIONS

RECONSIDERED

Acknowledgements

This report was written by staff of the Center for Community Alternatives
(CCA), Marsha Weissman, Ph.D., Executive Director, Alan Rosenthal, Esq. and
Patricia Warth, Esq. Co-Directors of Justice Strategies, Elaine Wolf, Ph.D.,
Research Director, and Michael Messina-Yauchzy, Ph.D., Research Associate,
with editorial assistance from Loren Siegel. The National HIRE Network
of the Legal Action Center and its Director, Roberta Meyers-Peeples, were
instrumental in identifying individuals whose stories put a human face to the
issues addressed in this paper. Jeff Van Buren, Lisa Bailey, and Christine Abaté
helped in the proofreading of the report and Karen Jones provided production
assistance.
We also wish to convey our appreciation to the American Association of
Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers and particularly Barmak
Nassirian, Associate Executive Director and Lisa Rosenberg, Associate Director,
Research, for their considerable assistance with the survey.
Special thanks to the many men and women who were willing to share their
stories about their experiences applying to college. We have highlighted but
a few of the accounts of difficulties faced by people with criminal records
in applying to college. These narratives of hurdles and successes are what
animate this report.
The Center for Community Alternatives is grateful to the Fulfilling the Dream
Fund for its support of this project.

The Center for Community Alternatives (CCA) promotes reintegrative justice
and a reduced reliance on incarceration through advocacy, services and public
policy development in pursuit of civil and human rights.
For additional copies of this report visit: www.communityalternatives.org

Table of Contents
i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2

I. Introduction

5

II. College Campuses and Public Safety Concerns

7

III. Findings from the National Survey of Screening and Use of a Criminal
History in the College Admissions Process

8
13
17
20

1. How widespread is the collection and use of CJI and how do colleges
collect this information?
2. Do the colleges and universities that collect and use CJI have special
procedures for evaluating whether or not to admit students with criminal
records?
3. How does an applicant’s criminal record affect his or her admission?
4. What post-enrollment services or conditions are offered to or required of
students with criminal records?

22

IV. Closing Doors to Higher Education: The Impact of the U.S. Criminal Justice
System

22
25
27

1. Expansive Reach of the Criminal Justice System
2. The Racial Impact of Using Criminal Records in Admissions Screening
3. Challenges in Interpreting Criminal Records and Identifying Inaccurate
Information

29

V. Higher Education and Promotion of Public Safety

31

VI. Recommendations for Reintegrative Justice: Making College Accessible to
People with Criminal Records

32

Recommendation

33

Secondary Recommendations

42

VII. Conclusion

Executive Summary
This report reviews findings from a first-of-its-kind survey conducted by
the Center for Community Alternatives in collaboration with the American
Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers (AACRAO)
that explores the use of criminal history screening in college admissions
procedures. A 59-question survey was administered electronically between
September 30 and October 29, 2009 through AACRAO’s network of 3,248
member institutions in the United States. In all, 273 institutions responded to
the survey. The survey helped inform the recommendations contained in this
report.

Key Findings
A majority (66%) of the responding colleges collect criminal justice
information, although not all of them consider it in their admissions
process. Private schools and four-year schools are more likely to collect
and use such information than their public and two-year counterparts.
A sizable minority (38%) of the responding schools does not collect or
use criminal justice information and those schools do not report that
their campuses are less safe as a result.
Self-disclosure through the college application or in some cases
the Common Application is the most typical way that colleges and
universities collect the information. A small minority of schools conduct
criminal background checks on some applicants, usually through
contracting with a private company.
Most schools that collect and use criminal justice information have
adopted additional steps in their admissions decision process, the
most common of which is consulting with academic deans and campus
security personnel. Special requirements such as submitting a letter
of explanation or a letter from a corrections official and completing
probation or parole are common.
Less than half of the schools that collect and use criminal justice
information have written policies in place, and only 40 percent train staff
on how to interpret such information.
A broad array of convictions are viewed as negative factors in the context
of admissions decision-making, including drug and alcohol convictions,
misdemeanor convictions, and youthful offender adjudications.
If it is discovered that an applicant has failed to disclose a criminal
record there is an increased likelihood that the applicant will be denied
admission or have their admission offer rescinded.
A slight majority of schools that collect information provides support or
supervision for admitted students who have criminal records, with more
emphasis on supervision rather than supportive services.
i

Discussion
The collection and use of criminal justice information (CJI)
by colleges and universities is problematic for a number of
reasons.
No link has been established between having a criminal record and posing a
risk to campus safety.
While college campuses are not immune from crime, the data show that
they are remarkably safe places compared to the community-at-large. This
is particularly true for serious crimes that involve personal violence. Violent
crime on campus is rare, and the few college students who are victims of
such crimes are mostly victimized off-campus by strangers. The Virginia Tech
incident, a tragic but aberrational event, was committed by a student who did
not have a criminal record. Our argument for eliminating the collection and
use of CJI in admissions decisions is in large part based on the absence of any
empirical evidence showing that students with criminal records pose a safety
risk on campus.
Having a criminal record is not an unusual characteristic in America today.
There has been a dramatic increase in the reach of criminal sanctions over
the past three decades. As a result, by year end 2008 more than 92 million
Americans had a criminal history record (arrest and/or conviction) on file in
the state repositories, and more than 2.3 million people were in jails and
prisons, giving the U.S. the highest incarceration rate in the world.
These high numbers are largely driven by the phenomenon of
“overcriminalization” – classifying an ever-widening range of behaviors as
criminal. Misdemeanor cases, many of them involving petty offenses like
under-age drinking, have doubled in the past thirty years.
This is a civil rights issue.
Racial disparities have been documented in the processing of every type of
crime, from juvenile delinquency to low-level misdemeanors to the imposition
of the death penalty. So pervasive is the criminal justice system in the lives
of black men that more black men have done prison time than have earned
college degrees. Because racial bias occurs at every stage of the criminal
justice system, screening for criminal records cannot be a race-neutral
practice.
Criminal records are often inaccurate and/or misleading.
The U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics has found that
“inadequacies in the accuracy and completeness of criminal history records
is the single most serious deficiency affecting the Nation’s criminal history
record information systems” and that “Many of the criminal history records
currently circulated by the repositories are difficult to decipher, particularly by
noncriminal justice users and out-of-state users.”
Accepting college applicants with criminal records promotes public safety.
Higher education opens doors of opportunity, enhances critical thinking, and
leads to better and more stable employment. Studies show that a college
education dramatically reduces recidivism. Colleges and universities promote
public safety when they open their doors to people with criminal records
who demonstrate the commitment and qualifications to pursue a college
education.
ii

Recommendation
Colleges and universities should
refrain from collecting and using
criminal justice information in the
context of college admissions.

iii

Secondary Recommendations
For those colleges and universities that continue to screen for criminal
history record information, the following steps should be taken to
reduce the detrimental effects of these practices:

1
2
3

Remove CJI disclosure requirement from initial application for admission.
a) Make CJI inquiry only after conditional admission.

Limit disclosure requirement to specific types of convictions:
a) Only convictions for felonies, not misdemeanors or infractions.
b) Only felony convictions imposed within the past five years.
c) Only convictions for felonies committed after the individual’s nineteenth birthday.

Establish admissions criteria that are fair and evidence-based:
a) Remove barriers to admission of individuals who are under some form of community supervision.
b) Avoid policies that impose blanket denials for particular crimes.
c) Provide an opportunity to document personal growth and rehabilitation.
d) Avoid requiring applicant to produce his “official” criminal history record information.

4
5

Base admissions decisions on assessments that are well-informed and unbiased:
a) Develop in-house expertise.
b) Perform an assessment and multi-factor analysis to determine whether a past
criminal offense justifies rejection.
c) Failure to disclose should not be the grounds for automatic rescission of an
offer of admission or an expulsion.

Establish procedures that are transparent and consistent with due process:
a) Any policy regarding criminal history information screening should be in
writing to ensure fairness and consistency.
b) Inform students in writing of the reason for the withdrawal of an offer of admission.
c) Applicants should be afforded the right of appeal.

6

Offer support and advocacy:
a) Provide on-campus support services for students who have criminal records.
b) Provide information and assistance when a prospective student’s chosen
field or profession bars individuals with criminal records.

7

Evaluate the policy periodically to determine whether it is justified.
iv

THE USE OF CRIMINAL
HISTORY RECORDS IN
COLLEGE ADMISSIONS

RECONSIDERED

1

I. Introduction

Juan1 graduated from a four-year
university in May 2010. He began
his higher education at a community
college which did not ask about his
criminal record. But questions about
criminal convictions were included
on the application to the four-year
institution to which he transferred.
Juan’s criminal record made it
difficult for him to enroll and attend
the school of his choice. He was
admitted after undergoing reviews of
his record (which pre-dated college)
but the university placed him on
disciplinary probation. He remained
on disciplinary probation for the next
two years in spite of the fact that he
had no further criminal involvement
or on-campus problems of any kind.
Each semester a hold was put on his
admission and he would have to go
through a special review before being
permitted to return. Disciplinary
probation status restricted Juan’s
ability to fully participate in campus
activities. He was selected for the
Beta Alpha Psi Honor Society, but
his disciplinary probation status
prevented him from serving as an
officer or representing the university
in any way.

Juan graduated with honors and
applied and was accepted into a
graduate MBA program at the same
university. Despite the fact that he
has an excellent undergraduate
record, the university will require
that he continue on disciplinary
probation while in graduate school.
Juan has appealed this decision. At
the time this study was completed,
Juan was notified that his appeal
was successful and he will no longer
be subject to disciplinary probation.
While he is pleased with the results,
Juan stated that he was bothered by
having to go through such a process
after so many years.
Juan was disappointed that he
could not be an officer and could
not represent the university. He
also found the university’s attitude
towards him to be very discouraging
and could understand how someone
with less commitment and fortitude
would be deterred from pursuing
their higher education goals.
Despite these obstacles, Juan
describes college as “part of his
redemption....College has helped
change my life.”

All of the names in the case histories have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the
particular individuals.

1

2

Juan’s situation is not
an isolated example.
Juan’s story is one of many that show how a criminal conviction can serve
as an unfair and unjustified obstacle to gaining a higher education. Juan’s
situation is not an isolated example. While it is easy to assume that exclusions
based on criminal records only affect a few “bad” people, in fact there are
millions of people with criminal records in the U.S. today. As of 2008, an
estimated 92 million people in the U.S. had a criminal history record (arrest
and/or conviction) (SEARCH 2009). An additional 14 million arrests are
recorded annually (FBI 2009). African American and Latino communities have
been hit particularly hard by extremely aggressive policing, prosecution and
incarceration. The explosive growth of criminal records databases and the
ease with which those databases can be accessed on the Internet means that
punishment no longer ends at the prison door or even at the end of probation
or parole. The collateral consequences of a conviction affect people long after
they have “paid their debt to society,” creating barriers to civic participation,
employment and, to an increasing extent, a college degree.
This report reviews the responses and findings from a first-of-its-kind survey
conducted by the Center for Community Alternatives (CCA) in collaboration
with the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions
Officers (AACRAO) that explores the use of criminal history screening in
admissions procedures. The findings heighten CCA’s concern that people with
criminal records are finding it increasingly difficult to enroll in colleges and
universities to the detriment of both public safety and equal opportunity.
The use of criminal justice information (CJI) to screen prospective college
applicants grows out of legitimate concerns for public safety which emerged
in the aftermath of the tragic and highly publicized events at Virginia Tech and
a few other college campuses. While college campuses are not immune from
crime, the data show that they are remarkably safe places compared to the
community-at-large. This is particularly true for serious crimes that involve
personal violence. Violent crime on campus is rare, and the few college
students who are victims of such crimes are mostly victimized off-campus
by strangers. The Virginia Tech incident, a tragic but aberrational event, was
committed by a student who did not have a criminal record. Our argument for
eliminating the collection and use of CJI in admissions decisions is based on
the absence of any empirical evidence showing that students with criminal
records pose a safety risk on campus.
Depriving people of access to higher education based on a criminal record
does not make campuses safer; instead it undermines public safety by
foreclosing an opportunity that has proven to be one of the most effective
deterrents to recidivism. Just as important, given the extreme racial disparities
present throughout the criminal justice system, it becomes a de-facto
abrogation of civil rights. In 21st century America, a criminal record has

3

become a surrogate for race-based discrimination, serving the same function,
albeit unintentionally, as the Black Codes and Jim Crow laws in earlier
times (Alexander 2010). Hyper-aggressive law enforcement in low-income
communities of color has led to the overrepresentation of African Americans
and Latinos among those with criminal convictions. Excluding otherwise
qualified applicants from attending college because of a criminal record has
the effect of depriving large numbers of people of color from opportunities
that form the core of the “American Dream.”
In recent years there has been a growing awareness of the effect of a criminal
record on access to employment and the right to vote. We have come to
understand that denying jobs to people who are striving to rehabilitate
themselves means locking them out of the labor market. There is a growing
movement to limit the use of criminal records in employment, from campaigns
to “ban the box” on employment applications to expanding
anti-discrimination protections to cover people with criminal
records. In the area of voting rights, many states have
reformed laws that disenfranchised people with criminal
records.

As of 2008,
an estimated
92 million
people in
the U.S. had
a criminal
history
record.

There is less public awareness about barriers to higher
education, although this issue is beginning to receive some
attention. Earlier this year, the American Bar Association
passed a resolution calling upon “federal, state, territorial
and local governments to increase the opportunities of
youth involved with the juvenile or criminal justice systems
and to prevent the continuing discrimination against those
who have been involved with these systems in the past
by limiting the collateral consequences of juvenile arrests,
adjudications, and convictions.”2 The resolution specifically
urges the passage of laws to “Prohibit colleges, universities,
financial aid offices, and other educational institutions…from
considering juvenile adjudications or criminal convictions
unless engaging in the conduct underlying the adjudication
or conviction would provide a substantial basis for denial
of a benefit or opportunity even if the person had not been
adjudicated or convicted.”

This report describes the current state of the practice of using CJI in the
college application process and how these practices affect prospective
students. Part II summarizes the evolution of the concern about crime on
campus. Part III provides major findings from the national survey. Part IV
discusses the implications of these findings in the context of how the criminal
justice system functions in the United States. Part V briefly discusses the
importance of a college education in enhancing public safety and long-term
rehabilitation. Part VI provides practical recommendations for improving
public safety on college campuses without resorting to the screening and
exclusion of people with criminal records. For those institutions committed to
criminal history screening, we offer guidance on how to minimize the risk that
such screening will result in the denial of admission to an otherwise qualified
applicant who poses no greater threat to campus safety than the average
student who has no prior criminal history record.

http://www.abanow.org/wordpress/wp-content/themes/ABANow/wp-content/uploads/
resolution-pdfs/MY2010/summaries/102A-passed-as-revised.pdf

2

4

II. College Campuses and
	 Public Safety Concerns
College campuses are commonly seen as “Ivory Towers,” immune from the
travails of daily life, including crime. However in 1991, in the throes of a
general “tough on crime” political environment, Congress passed the Crime
Awareness and Campus Security Act (known as the Clery Act) that requires
colleges and universities to track and report campus crime statistics, post
security policies and make timely warnings. As with most federal criminal
justice legislation, the Clery Act was named for an individual victim of a
heinous, but aberrant, crime. Jeanne Clery was a 19-year old Lehigh University
College freshman who was murdered in her dormitory. Her parents mounted
a campaign to pass a law that would provide students and their families with
information about crime on campus so that the relative safety of a campus
could be considered as a factor in the college selection process.
Clery Act reports filed by colleges and universities show that they are very
safe places. They also show that crimes committed on campus are more likely
to involve students who have no criminal records, such as those students
who killed Jeanne Clery and the student who opened fire at Virginia Tech.
Nevertheless, a few high profile crimes and concerns about institutional
liability have prompted the adoption of admissions policies that require
prospective applicants to disclose their criminal records and even their
secondary school disciplinary history. The Common Application, used by more
than 488 universities and colleges, added questions about both criminal
convictions and school disciplinary records in 2006 (Jaschik 2007). Many
colleges that do not use the Common Application have also started to include
such questions on their applications.
These practices are overreactions to exceedingly rare occurrences. Violent
crime on campus is very uncommon, and the few college students who are
victims of violent crimes are mostly victimized off-campus by strangers.
According to the U.S. Department of Education (2001) the overall rate of
criminal homicide at colleges and universities was .07 per 100,000 students
compared to a rate of 14.1 per 100,000 young adults in society-at-large. This
means that college students are 200 times less likely to be the victim of a
homicide than their non-student counterparts. Rape and sexual assault are
the only crimes showing no statistical differences between college students
and non-students (Hart 2003; Baum & Klaus 2005); these crimes are most
often committed at campus parties by inebriated students who have no prior
criminal records. The U.S. Department of Education (2001) concluded that
“students on the campuses of post-secondary institutions [are] significantly
safer than the nation as a whole” (p.5).

5

The assumption that is made in order to justify criminal history record
screening is that doing so will make campuses safer. However, there is no
evidence upon which to base this assumption. In fact, in the only study that
has investigated the correlation between criminal history screening and
improved campus safety, no connection was found (Olszewska 2007). In this
study, administered to undergraduate admissions directors, the practices of
inquiring about past disciplinary histories during the admissions process
(including criminal information, school judicial background, military discharge
information and the practice of conducting criminal background checks) were
examined and compared to campus crime rates. Olszewska found that there
is no statistically significant difference in the rate of campus crime between
institutions of higher education that explore undergraduate applicants’
disciplinary background and those that do not (Olszewska 2007).

“students on the campuses of
post-secondary institutions
[are] significantly safer than the
nation as a whole.”

6

III. Findings from the National
Survey of Screening and Use
of a Criminal History in the
College Admissions Process

The Center for Community Alternatives in partnership with the American
Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admission Officers (AACRAO)
developed a survey instrument to explore the use of criminal records
in college applications and admissions. The 59-question survey was
administered electronically from September 30 to October 29, 2009 through
AACRAO’s network of 3,248 member institutions in the United States. In all,
273 institutions responded.
The survey instrument provided space for respondents to offer comments and
we reviewed the comments carefully to enrich our understanding of the data.
In addition, we conducted follow-up interviews with six college admissions
officers to learn more about the reasons underlying decisions of whether or
not to require the disclosure of CJI as part of the application process.3
At the start of the survey, respondents were asked to enter their educational
institution identification number for the purpose of cross-tabulating survey
responses with demographics and other relevant data from U.S. Government
databases. To insure confidentiality respondents were informed that AACRAO
would not share institutional identities with CCA researchers who received
only coded demographic data for respondents in the data set.
The survey questions focused on several key issues:
1. How widespread is the collection of CJI in the college application process and
how do colleges collect this information?
2. Does the institution have special procedures to evaluate the admission of
prospective students with criminal records?
3. In what ways does an applicant’s criminal history affect his or her admission to
the college or university?
4. What post-enrollment conditions or services are required of or offered to
students with criminal records?

The interviews were conducted only with individuals who noted on their survey that they would
be open to a follow-up contact.

3

7

1
How widespread is the collection of CJI in the college
application process and how do colleges collect this
information?
A majority of the responding colleges collect CJI, although not all of them
consider it in their admissions process. (Figure 1). Sixty-six percent collect
it from all applicants but 16 percent of respondents indicated that although
they collect the information, they do not use it in the admissions process.4
Five percent collect CJI only for applicants who are applying to specific
programs. Another twenty-nine percent do not collect it at all, but a small
subset of those colleges use CJI in their admissions process if the information
comes to them through a source other than self-disclosure.
As shown in Figure 2, the total percentage of colleges who do not use CJI is
38 percent (Figure 2). None of the respondents whose colleges do not use CJI
indicated in their comments that they believed their campuses were less safe
as a result.
Figure 1
Practices regarding the collection of criminal
justice information

28.7

66.4

% that collect CJ information
about all applicants

% that do not collect CJ information
about any applicants

4.9

% that collect CJ information
about some applicants

Some colleges that use the Common Application will automatically “collect” criminal justice
history information through the Application’s self-disclosure question. Although collected, some
colleges report that they do not consider it in the admissions decision.

4

8

Figure 2
A majority of schools collect criminal justice
information, but not all of them use it in the
admissions process

7.0
Collect and use

21.5

55.0

Collect but don’t use

Don’t collect and don’t use

Don’t collect but use

16.5
The responses differ significantly by sector and level, with private schools and
four-year schools being much more likely to consider criminal history in the
admissions decision than their public and two-year counterparts.
Private four-year schools are significantly more likely to “collect and use”
than other schools.

Kanye, a former high school track star and honor
student, grew up with two sets of companions—
his school friends and his ‘dropout’ friends from
the nearby housing project, kids with high unmet
needs ‘at risk’ for problems. “You don’t stop being
friends because somebody quit school,” he says. So
Kanye studied, ran track, stocked groceries, and
helped an elderly neighbor, but hung out in the
evening with friends who stole and did drugs.
“You can get caught up in wanting things, showing
off to friends. I made a big mistake.” Kanye went
along with a plan concocted by one of those
friends and was charged near the end of his junior
year with felony armed robbery.

9

Afterward, Kanye expressed sorrow and shame for
his victim’s trauma. Fortunately for him, Kanye’s
attorney was able to get him adjudicated as a
youthful offender. His record was sealed and jail
time reduced to less than a year. Spending half
his senior year behind bars, Kanye was fortunate
to have the support of his high school teachers.
He did lessons by mail and, despite resistant
corrections officials, took his SATs in jail to meet
NCAA standards for a track scholarship. Released

in February of his senior year, he took day and
night classes to graduate on time.
Kanye says he was lucky. “As a youthful offender,
I didn’t have to disclose that I had a charge.” He
started college with partial funding the next fall.
“Going to college meant everything to me,” he says.
At college, Kanye met the director of a national
not-for-profit organization located in Washington,
DC. The director was so impressed with the Kanye
that he recruited him into his organization with
salary and full college tuition. Kanye transferred to
a nearby University and completed his Bachelor of
Science degree while working.
Now twenty-seven years old, Kanye directs a
major national program to reduce school violence.
He travels the country to establish partnerships
between community organizations and city
schools. He recruits others like himself to be
school mentors. Once jailed for a violent crime, he
works to prevent youth violence. Kanye is back on
track and leading his community to a better future
because he was given a second chance.

There are two primary mechanisms through which colleges and universities
collect criminal history information – through self-reporting and/or
criminal background screening. Self-reported information typically comes
in response to questions posed in the admissions application. Background
check information can be collected in a variety of ways including through
the State Central Repository (the state agency responsible for collecting and
maintaining official criminal records), through a public information search,
through another database, or by contracting with a private company that
specializes in background checks. The background checks can be multi- or
single-state.
Self-disclosure through the college application is the most common way
that colleges and universities collect CJI: 64 percent of the institutions that
responded to the survey reported that their applications ask for disclosure
of a criminal record. It is more common for private institutions to ask such
questions on the application (81%) and four year colleges were more likely to
ask for self-disclosure than two-year colleges (74% compared to 40%) (Figure
3).
Figure 3
Precentage of responding schools that
require applicants to self-disclose a criminal
record, by sector and level

80.6
74.0

54.5

Two-year

Four-year

Public

Private

40.0

10

Some institutions (5% of respondents) require only a subset of applicants to
disclose their criminal record. Most often this occurs when someone applies to
a program that prepares students for jobs that appear to be closed to people
with criminal records. Health-related degree programs were identified as one
example. One of the admissions officers interviewed stated that although
her college does not automatically reject students with criminal records,
such applicants who want to enroll in the Health Division are told that they
will not be able to fulfill their degree requirements since they will not be
permitted to intern at a clinical site. “At that point,” the admission officer
added, “people usually withdraw their application.”

Alfreda began college after being convicted of
a felony. She started at a two-year community
college, was a Dean’s list student, and graduated
with honors. She wanted to pursue a Bachelor’s
Degree but feared that she would be rejected if
her criminal conviction was revealed.
She is convinced that one school did not admit
her because of her record. She completed the
application, disclosing her criminal record.
The college admissions office then requested
additional information describing the offense and
the legal charge. Although the request made her
feel “shamed, dirty and less-than-deserving”, Alfreda
quickly provided the required information. Almost
immediately she received a letter of rejection:
“‘We regret to inform you...’ I have that memorized.”
After that she limited her applications to schools
that did not ask about criminal history records.
Alfreda did not have the financial resources to pay
application fees to schools she believed would
automatically reject her.

11

Although she wants to further her education
Alfreda is discouraged because she has been
repeatedly told that she will never get a nurse’s
license or be able to work in the health field:
“The major thing holding me back from a higher
college degree in the fields that I am interested in
is licensing – can’t get licensed with a felony-- in
nursing, or any medical.” Nonetheless, she greatly
values her college experience: “I’m sure if I hadn’t
gone to college, I’d be either dead or working as a
maid in a hotel...Instead I work in the mental health
field which I enjoy.”

Only 20 percent of schools (50 institutions) reported that they conduct a
criminal background check, most commonly through a contract with a private
company (Figure 4). Twenty-two percent of those schools noted that they
conduct background checks through the official state repository agency and
another 20 percent reported collecting this information through a single-state
law enforcement agency. Twenty-four percent of the schools that conduct
criminal background checks--the second highest response-- answered that
they did not know how the background checks were conducted.

Figure 4
Source of information for criminal backround checks

28.0

24.0

% Don’t Know

20.0

% Law Enforcement
Agency

% Official State
Repository

% Private Company

22.0

Of the 50 schools that conduct some form of background check screening, 14
percent do so for all students and another 14 percent do so only for students
who are selected for admission. The remaining 72 percent of schools conduct
background screenings only in certain circumstances: 56 percent screen
applicants who disclosed a criminal conviction, 20 percent conduct screening
for applicants applying to specific programs where future employment could
be affected by a criminal record, and 10 percent conduct screening on a caseby-case basis.

12

2
Do the colleges and universities that collect and use CJI
have special procedures for evaluating whether or not to
admit students with criminal records?
Most schools in this category have adopted additional procedures for making
admissions decisions about applicants with criminal records. Only 6 percent
of the schools that consider a criminal history say their process is identical
for applicants with and without a criminal record. Seventy-five percent of
colleges with special procedures bring in decision-makers who are not
generally involved in admissions decisions. Academic deans and campus
security staff are the most common choices: fifty-three percent of schools
bring in deans and 40 percent of schools include campus security personnel.
(Figure 5). Fifteen of the responding schools indicated that a campus security
office’s negative recommendation results in an automatic denial of admission.
Special admissions committees are used by 43 percent of schools who have
special procedures. Less common is the involvement of legal counsel (26%),
counseling or mental health staff (20%) or risk assessment personnel (12%).

Figure 5
Personnel involved in admissions decision for
applicant with a criminal record

53.4

42.9
40.0

25.5
19.9

13

% Risk
Assessment
personel

% Mental Health

% Legal Council

% Campus Security

% Special admissions
committee

% Academic Dean

11.8

A majority of the schools with special procedures have extra requirements
for applicants with criminal records. The most common of these is a letter of
explanation (91%) and/or letter from corrections official (probation, parole,
corrections) (63%) (Figure 6). Fifty-four percent of colleges that consider
criminal histories require a personal interview. Almost forty percent require
that prospective students have completed any term of community supervision
before they can be admitted. Sixteen percent require the applicant to produce
official criminal justice documents, such as a rap sheet.

Figure 6
Special requirements for applicants with
criminal records

90.6

63.2
54.2

% Rap Sheet

15.6

% Completion of
Community
Supervision

% Personal Interview

% Letter from Corrections
Official

% Letter of Explanation

38.5

One admissions director interviewed stated that applicants who disclose
a criminal record are asked to submit their rap sheet, a letter from their
parole officer and a personal essay, noting that “a lot of people drop out [of the
application process] at that point.” He estimated that only about 5 out of an
estimated 30 applications a year from prospective students who disclose a
criminal history will move forward with their applications once the additional
information is requested.

14

Rachael, who graduated with honors from her
undergraduate college, wanted to pursue a Ph.D.
in political science. She was shocked to learn that
many of the doctoral programs were requesting
information about arrests and convictions.
Rachael, who had a misdemeanor conviction,
decided not to apply to her first-choice school; she
assumed her record would be held against her and
could not afford to spend $200 on an application
fee when she feared she would not get a fair
review. Her own words convey her feelings about
being discouraged from applying to her firstchoice school: “I was disappointed....I felt like it was
a waste of time to try to apply when that was one of
the first questions asked in the application process.
Despite being one of the best suited departments

for my particular interests, I chose not to apply ... I
was also scared that despite reaching a point in my
life where I was a strong contender for the top ten
political science doctoral programs, my mistake may
destroy my future opportunities.” Rachael instead
applied and was accepted into a graduate program
that did not ask about criminal records and is now
working with a widely recognized professor whose
interests include the collateral consequences of a
criminal conviction. Rachael commented: “It struck
me as odd that if someone was at a point in their life
to apply for doctoral programs that a criminal record
should play a role in the decision-making process.”

Less than half of the schools that collect and use criminal justice information
have written policies to guide admissions officers and others involved in
the admissions process (Figure 7). Several of the admissions officers we
interviewed commented that written policies and best practices would be
helpful.

Figure 7
Existence of a written policy regarding the
admissions of applicants with a criminal record

47.1

52.9

15

% with no written policy

% with written policy

Finally, only 40 percent of schools that consider criminal history information
in the admissions process train staff on how to interpret CJI (Figure 8). The
people who are most likely to receive such training are admissions staff
and the training is most often provided by campus security (one-third of the
schools indicate that campus security are the trainers), other admissions staff
(23%), “other staff” (23%), or legal staff (22%).

Figure 8
Training for admissions personnel on interpreting
criminal records

40.4
% whose admissions staff
receives no training

59.6

% whose admissions staff
receives training

“I felt like it was a waste of time
to try to apply when that was one
of the first questions asked in the
application process.”

16

3
How does an applicant’s criminal record affect his or her
admission?
It is noteworthy that a quarter of the schools that collect CJI from applicants
report that they do not use that information as a basis for denying admission.
Disclosure of a criminal record is more likely to trigger additional screening
rather than automatic disqualification. Sixty-one percent report that they
consider criminal justice information in the admissions decision, while a
quarter of the responding schools report that they have created at least some
criminal justice-related automatic bar to admission. Convictions for a violent
or sex offense are the most likely to trigger an automatic denial of admission.
Of the schools that responded to the survey indicating that they impose some
special requirements for applicants with criminal records, almost 40 percent
stated that they do not admit students who have not yet completed their term
of community supervision.

Latesha’s choice of what kind of college to go to
and what course of study to pursue was greatly
influenced by her past criminal history. She wanted
to be a nurse but believed that nursing schools
would not admit her and that, even if she was
able to graduate, she would not be able to get her
nurse’s license. “I did not apply [to nursing schools
and even certain colleges] because I knew my felony
would hold me back ... I would not be able to get in.”
Instead, Latesha chose to pursue a degree in social
work, although she was aware that it might be
difficult to find work in that field because of a past
criminal record.

Latesha had to make monthly court appearances.
She says: “Although a first time offender, dealing with
court and school and being judged in my school life
and personal life was difficult.”

At the time of her application, Latesha had
pending charges in another state. She was charged
with a violent felony offense. She disclosed this
on her application and was asked to provide
additional information including a statement of
the circumstances of the crime and official records.
She said that having to provide this additional
information was discouraging and she expected
to be rejected. But she was admitted, graduated
with a Bachelor’s Degree in Social Work and is
completing her Master’s Degree.

With a Bachelor’s degree in hand, and an MSW
underway, Latesha has been able to obtain
satisfying work. She says of her college
opportunity: “Having a college degree has always
been a goal of mine and was instilled in me. It makes
me feel blessed and thankful that I do have a degree.
My degree has helped my life because although I
do have a conviction, my degree, work history and
character have blessed me with strong employment
opportunities. I currently work in the social service
field; my degree and life experience have helped me
to be able to relate to my clients.”

Because her case was pending, Latesha faced
competing demands of court and school
requirements. During her first year of college,
17

Latesha credits support from her advisor, the Dean
of the School, and some professors for helping
her through this difficult time: “I was blessed... [my
advisor] gave me much emotional guidance. The few
professors who knew my circumstances allowed me
to hand in my work online while away at court. I was
able to make up assignments when I was absent for
court as well.”

The survey also looked at how colleges and universities that collect and use
CJI interpret that information and found that a broad array of convictions
are viewed as negative factors in the context of admissions decision-making
(Figure 9). Not only are convictions for a violent crime or sex offense viewed
negatively (94 percent view each of these crime convictions negatively) but
90 percent of schools reported that they considered any felony conviction
negatively, and 75 percent considered a drug or alcohol conviction negatively.
Over half reported that youthful offender adjudications for underlying violent
or sex offenses were a negative factor and almost half reported that they
considered any felony youthful offender adjudication negatively.5 About a
third of schools reported that they considered pending misdemeanors or
misdemeanor arrests in a negative light and 11 percent stated that they
viewed “lesser offense youthful offender adjudications” negatively.
Figure 9
Percentage of schools that view specific types
of criminal records negatively
94.2
90.1

Pending
misdemeanor or
misdemeanor
arrest

35.5

Any felony
youthful offender
adjudication

Drug or alcohol conviction

47.9

Any felony conviction

Conviction for a violent or sex offense

75.2

Treatment of a YO adjudication as a negative factor underscores the broad misunderstanding
about the criminal justice process. In most states it is not considered a criminal conviction and
a person is legally entitled to not disclose it. In the State of New York where a YO adjudication
is more familiar to admissions officials, some State University of New York (SUNY) applications
actually, and correctly, warn students that they should not report a YO adjudication as a
conviction.

5

18

If a college admissions official concludes that an applicant has failed to
disclose a criminal record there is an increased likelihood that the applicant
will be denied admission or have the admission offer rescinded. Thirty-two
percent of schools that consider criminal history information reported that
they automatically deny admission to applicants who fail to disclose their
criminal record and another 46 percent stated that they might deny admission.
Most of the comments offered in conjunction with this question suggest that
failure to disclose a criminal record is considered to be a deliberate act of
lying or falsification.6 The interviews with admissions staff provided some
examples of how schools learn of a criminal history in the absence of selfdisclosure. In one instance, further investigation, after a student was involved
in some trouble on campus, turned up a past record. In another instance, a
high school guidance counselor disclosed CJI and in another case, the school
was contacted by the FBI about an ongoing investigation.
Of the 160 schools that report that admission can be denied on the basis of
having a criminal record, two-thirds report that they inform applicants that
their record is the reason for denial. Of those, one-third of the schools report
that they do not have an appeals process. Over half of the schools that have
an appeals process provide that information to all applicants denied because
of a criminal record, and an additional 14 percent provide that information
only to some denied applicants. Twenty-eight percent report that although
they have an appeals process, they do not inform denied applicants of that
option.

Such a conclusion may not be justified. As explained elsewhere in this report, the mistaken
conclusion that the student intentionally falsified the application by failing to disclose may be the
result of misreporting on a background check, a misinterpretation of a background check entry, or
confusion on the part of the applicant about the exact nature of the conviction.

6

19

4
What post-enrollment services or conditions are offered to
or required of students with criminal records?
More than half (55 percent) of the schools that collect CJI report that they
either provide some level of support or require supervision for at least some
students who have a criminal record. Of the schools that responded to the
open-ended question regarding support services or supervision, the greater
emphasis was on supervision by a 3 to 2 margin. Forty-three percent of the
schools commented that their assignment of a student to special programs is
made on a case-by-case basis.

Richard applied to schools that did not ask about
his criminal record and was able to enroll with
ease. He was assisted in his college application
process by an organization called College Initiative
(CI) located in New York City. CI is a not-for-profit
reentry education program that helps formerly
incarcerated people begin or continue their
higher education after release from prison or
jail, during probation or parole, or while fulfilling
alternative-to-incarceration commitments. CI’s free
services include one-on-one guidance counseling,
help with financial aid and college applications,
preparation for entrance examinations, textbook
stipends, and on-going support and mentoring.
CI developed strong contacts with colleges and
universities that did not discriminate against
people with criminal records. CI’s partnership
with COPE (College Opportunity to Prepare for
Employment) offices on ten City University of New
York (CUNY) campuses offers students access to
COPE’s services including free academic support,
transportation assistance, employment counseling
and childcare referrals. As an analysis of the data
from 2007-08 revealed, CI students performed
on par with the general CUNY population, and
CI students entering with general equivalency
diplomas (GEDs) outpaced average CUNY GED
earners. In the 2009-2010 academic year, 315
students enrolled in colleges and universities
with 72% majoring in a public service related
field. As of June of 2010, 93 students had earned

104 degrees (26 associate, 51 bachelors and 27
masters), many with scholarships and academic
honors. Ninety-seven percent had no further
involvement in the criminal justice system, and of
those who did, most faced technical violations of
the conditions of their release, not new criminal
charges.
Until contacted by CCA for this study, Richard had
no idea that some colleges were making it difficult
to enroll: “I was never discouraged from applying
to any college because of my criminal history. That
said, had I encountered an application with questions
about a criminal history, I would have definitely
thought twice about applying to that particular
college, especially since my own history seemed to
make no difference at the colleges that accepted me.”
He says of his ability to attend college: “I’m not
exactly starting a college education; I’m finishing
one. But it feels fantastic. Honestly, attending college
and finishing my BA (and later my master’s at the
least) feels like a matter of life or death. Not literally,
of course, but it is the most important thing I feel I
need to do. As I said, I think this is one of the very
few ways I can make my history an asset rather than
a detriment. I couldn’t even get a job at a moving
company due to my history. Ironically, I may end
up working as a professional in the social justice/
prisoner advocacy field largely because of that same
history. So it feels great and extremely important.”

20

Other conditions may apply to enrolled students with criminal records.
Thirteen percent of schools that collect CJI have special registration
requirements including ensuring that the student is in compliance with
any state registration rules, meeting with a school official, and the entry
of the student’s name in a special database and/or restrictions on class
enrollment. Other special requirements noted in comments provided by
responding admissions officers include “providing court documents and
recommendations;” “a letter informing us about the issue;” “paying for a
criminal background check;” and “housing restrictions.” In one follow-up
interview, the admissions officer stated that students with criminal records
are subject to additional surveillance by campus security and might not be
permitted to take courses on campus; instead they are restricted to taking
classes online.
Fifty-three schools or 32 percent of the schools that collected CJI as part
of the admissions process reported having restrictions on access to student
services. Seventeen (10 percent) noted that such restrictions are handled on
a case-by-case basis. Housing restrictions were mentioned by 22 responding
colleges and restrictions on work study assignments were mentioned by
two respondents. Finally, 6 percent of schools noted that they include an
annotation in the student’s transcript.
In summary, the survey results show that criminal history screening of college
applicants is becoming increasingly common; that people with criminal
records are subjected to special admissions screening procedures; that college
personnel other than admissions officials often participate in the admissions
decision; that a wide range of criminal convictions and even arrests can
negatively impact the admissions decision; that failure to disclose a
conviction can result in rejection or expulsion; and that even after admission,
students with records may be subject to special restrictions. However, the
survey also shows that a sizeable minority of schools—38 percent—either do
not collect any criminal history information, or if collected, do not use such
information in admissions decisions.

21

IV. Closing Doors to Higher
Education: The Impact of the
U.S. Criminal Justice System

The use of CJI in admissions decisions has to be evaluated in the context of
the operation of the criminal justice system in the United States. There are
several areas of concern which colleges should consider in determining both
the utility of such screening and its impact on particular groups of prospective
students.
Major areas of concern are:
1. The widespread use of the criminal justice system in the U.S. to address social and
public health problems;
2. The disproportionate impact of the criminal justice system on people of color; and
3. The prevalence of errors in the reporting or the interpretation of criminal records.

1

Expansive Reach of the Criminal Justice System
There has been a dramatic increase in the reach of criminal sanctions over
the past three decades. Behaviors that were formerly addressed in other
domains - family, faith community and schools - are now under the purview
of the criminal justice system. Criminal justice practitioners and scholars call
this phenomenon “widening the net.” The enormous number of people under
criminal justice control today demonstrates the breadth of this phenomenon:
More than 2.3 million people are in jails and prisons, giving the U.S. the
highest incarceration rate in the world, and more than 7.3 million people are
under some form of correctional supervision (prison, jail, probation, or parole)
(Glaze & Bonczar 2009; Pew Center for the States 2009). Two studies by the
Pew Center on the States in 2008 and 2009 captured the magnitude of the
U.S. criminal justice system. More than one in every 100 adults is currently
locked up in the U.S. and an astonishing one in every 31 adults is under some
form of correctional control or supervision (Pew Center on the States 2009;
Pew Center on the States 2010).
22

The explosive growth of misdemeanor arrests, prosecutions and convictions
is a major reason for the fact that more than 100 million Americans have
criminal history records. Misdemeanor cases have more than doubled since
the 1970’s and now account for 10.5 million cases per year (NACDL 2009).
These offenses are relatively petty—a very common misdemeanor charge
in many jurisdictions is underage drinking, a not infrequent occurrence on
college campuses. Because of the tremendous volume of these cases there is
pressure on everyone, including defendants, to enter a guilty plea at the first
court appearance, whether or not they committed the crime (NACDL 2009).
In addition to the 100 million people with criminal history records on file in
the state repositories as of the end of 2008, another 14 million arrests are
made each year (FBI 2009). More than 3 million of the arrests in 2008 were
for felonies (SEARCH 2009). The largest category of arrests in 2008 was
for drug offenses, which accounted for 1.7 million arrests (FBI 2009). The
same FBI report indicated that people of college age (under 25 years old)
represented 44.3 percent of the total arrests (FBI 2009). According to the
Bureau of Justice Statistics in 2006 alone more than 1.1 million people were
convicted of felony-level offenses in state courts, a 37 percent increase from
1990 (Durose et al. 2009). This number does not include felony convictions
in federal courts. (Uggen et al. 2006) estimated more than 16 million people
in the United States – 7.5 percent of the adult population – had a felony
conviction. In practical terms it can now be fairly estimated that more than
one in three adults in America have some type of criminal history record –
arrest, misdemeanor or felony conviction- on file with state criminal justice
agencies (New York State Bar Association 2006).
Not only has the number of people incarcerated expanded dramatically, there
has been a corresponding increase in the number of people being released
from prison and reentering their communities after being incarcerated. In
2008, over 735,000 people were released from state and federal prison
(Sabol, West & Cooper 2009). Many returned home seeking to rebuild their
lives through education and employment.
The widening of the net has ensnared millions of people whose behavior
would not have been considered criminal in the past. One scholar illustrates
the overcriminalization of behavior in the U. S. with a laundry list of crimes
that include: maiming oneself to excite sympathy (a felony in the state of
Delaware); training a bear to wrestle (a crime in Alabama); failing to return
library books (against the law in Utah); frightening pigeons from their nests
(an offense in Massachusetts); and spitting in public spaces (a misdemeanor in

23

Virginia) (Luna 2005). It is difficult to measure the number of crimes that have
been added to state penal codes, but an American Bar Association (ABA) study
(1998) found that an astonishing 40 percent of federal crimes enacted since
the Civil War were passed into law between 1970 and 1998.
Moreover, the labels attached to behaviors can often imply a level of
dangerousness not commensurate with the actual deed. In New York State, for
example, the theft of a bicycle from a garage attached to a house is classified
as a violent crime, even if the theft did not involve actual violence or any
interaction with another person, and did not penetrate the actual home itself.
In Delaware, students can be criminally charged with the crime of “offensive
touching,” which implies some type of sexual assault but typically involves
adolescent behavior such as bra snapping or patting someone’s behind.
The efficacy of screening for CJI in the college application context must be
considered in light of the fact that in 21st Century America, having a criminal
record is no longer an unusual characteristic. Given the sheer numbers
involved, it is inevitable that otherwise qualified and deserving applicants are
either being rejected or are being discouraged from applying in the first place.
Of added significance is the fact that only a small percentage of people who
engage in criminal behavior are arrested, prosecuted and convicted. Many
more prospective college students are never arrested, prosecuted as adults
or receive adult convictions despite their criminal behavior. A national survey
conducted by the National Center for Addiction and Substance Abuse at
Columbia University (1994) found that almost half of all full-time college
students binge drink and/or abuse prescription and illegal drugs, and a study
by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Substance Abuse and
Mental Health Services Administration found that in the age group, 18-25,
more than one quarter acknowledged
marijuana use in the past year. Is it
the bad fortune of getting caught
and having a criminal conviction that
makes one unfit for college admission,
or is it the “criminal behavior?” Clearly,
screening for criminal convictions
when the behavior itself is relatively
commonplace does not make college
campuses any safer.

Clearly, screening for
criminal convictions
when the behavior
itself is relatively
commonplace does
not make college
campuses any safer.

24

2

The Racial Impact of Using Criminal Records in
Admissions Screening

It has now been well-documented that racial disparities infect the entire
criminal justice system, from policing to sentencing. Such disparities have
been documented in the processing of every type of crime, from juvenile
delinquency to low-level misdemeanors to the imposition of the death penalty
(Kalegeros 2003; Golub et al. 2007; Mufioz et al. 1998; Dieter 1998; Baldus
1998; Cole 1999). Because racial bias, whether deliberate or inadvertent,
occurs at every stage of the criminal justice system, screening for criminal
records cannot be a race-neutral practice.
Disparate treatment of young people of color begins in the schools with
disproportionate suspensions and in-school arrests--a phenomenon known
as “the school-to-prison pipeline” (Wald & Losen 2003; Skiba et al. 2000;
Weissman 2008). High levels of police deployment in communities of color
combined with racial profiling and “stop and frisk” practices also bring
disproportionate numbers of young people of color into the criminal justice
system (Markowitz & Jones-Brown 2000; New York Attorney General 1999).
As a result, an estimated one in three adult black men has a felony conviction,
twelve percent of black men between the ages of sixteen and thirty-four are
incarcerated, and more than twice that number are on probation or parole
(Uggen et al. 2006; Harrison & Beck 2005; Glaze & Bonczar 2008). In 2004
alone, more than one million people were convicted of felony offenses in state
courts, almost 40 percent of whom were African American, far exceeding their
12 percent representation in the U.S. population (Durose & Langan 2007).
Racial disparities are starkly apparent in incarceration rates: Blacks are
imprisoned at a rate of 3,218 per 100,000, Latinos at 1,220 per 100,000, and
whites at 463 per 100,000 (Glaze & Bonczar 2008). The same Pew Center
studies that documented that one in 100 adults were incarcerated and one
in 31 adults in the U.S. were under correctional control, dramatically show
the racial disparity when controlling for race or gender. One in nine African
American males is currently incarcerated while one in eleven African American
adults is under correctional supervision. A recent Bureau of Justice Statistics
study that analyzed the total incarcerated population at year end 2008
concluded that black males were imprisoned at a rate six and a half times
higher than white males (Sabol, West & Cooper 2009). So pervasive is the
criminal justice system in the lives of black men that more black men have
done prison time than have earned college degrees (Western et al. 2003).
This is a national tragedy.

25

The disparate enforcement of drug laws is a significant contributor to the
overrepresentation of African Americans and Latinos in criminal justice
statistics. It is well documented that illegal drug use does not differ
significantly for whites, blacks or Hispanics (SAMHSA 2007), yet 62 percent
of people incarcerated for drug crimes are black (Human Rights Watch 2000).
Recent research on marijuana possession arrests shows huge disparities as
well. In New York City from 1997 to 2006, marijuana misdemeanor arrestees
were 52 percent black, 31 percent Hispanic and 15 percent white, although
their population in the City was 26 percent, 27 percent and 36 percent,
respectively (Levine and Small 2008). Similar disparities exist throughout the
country and are particularly significant here given the prevalence of marijuana
use among college-age people. According to government statistics, a higher
percentage of white 12th graders and whites between the ages of 18-25 use
marijuana than their black and Hispanic counterparts. Yet blacks in particular
are arrested for possessing small amounts of marijuana at far higher numbers,
and, in many jurisdictions, those arrests result in a guilty plea and a criminal
record.
Because so many people of color are caught in the criminal justice system,
the imposition of institutional barriers such as admissions policies that screen
out people with a criminal record constitute a de facto return to race-based
discrimination in higher education. The criminal justice system has created
a new divide in the United States. Prior to Brown v. Board of Education, 347
U.S. 483 (1954), official discrimination was accepted in many areas of life
including education. Today, unofficial discrimination and exclusion are
perpetuated and justified under the guise of ostensibly “race-neutral” criminal
justice policies and practices.7

7
The use of a criminal record has already had an impact on the ability of low income students,
many of whom are students of color, to get a college education. Until 2006, Section 484,
Subsection (r) of the 1998 Amendments to the Higher Education Act of 1965 denied or delayed
eligibility for financial aid to people with drug convictions. A GAO report (2005) determined that
about 20,000 students each year were denied Pell Grants and 30,000-40,000 lost out on student
loans because of this federal law. Wheelock and Uggen (2006) concluded, “Relative to Whites,
racial and ethnic minorities are significantly more likely to be convicted of disqualifying drug
offenses ... and significantly more likely to require a Pell Grant to attend college... It is therefore
plausible that tens of thousands have been denied college funding solely on the basis of their
conviction status” (p. 23). Thus, while screening of prospective college applicants for criminal
records may appear to be race neutral, the racial disparities in the criminal justice system means
this practice has the potential of having significant racially exclusionary effects.

26

3

Challenges in Interpreting Criminal Records and
Identifying Inaccurate Information

Carla’s conviction dates back to 1993 and for many years she has worked
to help formerly incarcerated people reintegrate into the community. She
recently decided to get a college degree and applied to a local university.
Her experience shows the inaccuracy of criminal records: “My application to
a University here in ...Texas has been breaking my heart. My last offense was
in 1993 and they will not move forward on my application until I prove that I
completed my sentence. I received my background check ... and nowhere does it
say ‘sentence completed.’ I have been waiting over a month now just trying to clear
this up and prove that I have served my time. I have been on an emotional roller
coaster because it seems that my past will not die, stay dead and remain buried.
I will go to District Court tomorrow and try to get something that shows I paid my
debt to society.”

For criminal justice policy makers and researchers, not all convictions are
alike. There are important distinctions to be made based on the level of crime
(e.g. felony, misdemeanor, and noncriminal violation), the individual’s status
at conviction (e.g., juvenile delinquent, Youthful Offender, Juvenile Offender,
adult), the type of crime, and the state laws governing types of convictions or
adjudications. There are differences with respect to which, if any, convictions,
can be sealed or expunged. There are also differences at the state level
regarding the age at which a person is considered an adult for criminal
justice purposes. In New York State, for example, anyone 16 years or older is
considered an adult for any crime and prosecuted in the adult court system.
In contrast, many other states do not prosecute youth as adults until they
reach the age of 18. As a result, applicants from different states will answer
the same application questions about their criminal history differently, not
because of differences in the behavior involved, but because of differences in
state criminal and juvenile justice laws and definitions.
Two college applicants from different states, convicted of the very same
offense at age 15 could end up with entirely different criminal history records.
One could be saddled with an adult felony conviction and the other could
end up with no adult criminal record at all. How could an admissions officer
possibly fairly compare the two applicants to determine which, if either, posed
a future threat to campus safety?
Sealing, expungement, pardons, deferred prosecution, nolle prosequi, and
Youthful Offender status pose challenges for both the prospective student
and the admissions officer trying to assess the student’s response on the
application for admission. Records that are sealed or expunged, as well as
convictions that are covered by “youthful offender” status are not supposed to

27

be reported by the individual who has such a conviction. Sealed and expunged
records are required to be removed from criminal history information.
Unfortunately, many people are not made aware of their rights and continue
to respond in the affirmative when asked whether they have a criminal record.
College admissions officers may not be familiar with what kinds of convictions
do not have to be reported and what specific offenses mean, and as a result,
may misinterpret CJI included on a college application.
Errors in criminal history records are a major problem in the U.S. Common
errors include the failure to report a final disposition in a case, the inclusion
of information that should have been sealed, the failure to note Youthful
Offender status when applicable, and the misreporting of arrests and
convictions. A study by the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) noted that
many states still do not have the capacity to record dispositions (BJS 2009).
A 2001 survey of state criminal history practices conducted by BJS found
considerable variation in state procedures for auditing the quality of their
criminal justice data: 22 states reported that they had not done an audit in
the five years preceding, leading BJS to conclude: “The issue of the accuracy and
completeness of criminal history records was identified as an important concern
during the earliest stages of the development of a national criminal history
record program. More recently, the data quality issue has emerged as one of the
most important and timely issues confronting the criminal justice community. ...
In the view of most experts, inadequacies in the accuracy and completeness of
criminal history records is the single most serious deficiency affecting the Nation’s
criminal history record information systems” (BJS 2001:38). The errors identified
included missing, inaccurate, or incomplete information, and audits of various
state repositories found error rates that were deemed “unacceptable” (p. 39).
The report also noted great dissimilarities in reporting and classification
among states and warned that, “Many of the criminal history records currently
circulated by the repositories are difficult to decipher, particularly by noncriminal
justice users and out-of-State users” (p. 42).
Errors regarding Youthful Offender status are particularly relevant in
the context of college admissions. Many states as well as the federal
government grant certain young people “Youthful Offender” status allowing
for more lenient sentencing options and conveying other benefits that
protect the young person from the long term negative consequences of a
criminal conviction. In New York State, for example, a person who receives
Youthful Offender status for a felony or a misdemeanor is legally permitted
to answer “No” when asked if he or she has been convicted of a crime.
Many people, however, do not know this and may answer “Yes” on college
applications. Even more troubling, Youthful Offender convictions are not
always properly recorded or sealed and may be accessible through criminal
background checks. Thus, for example, an applicant may correctly answer
in the negative to a question about a criminal conviction for which she
was subsequently adjudicated a Youthful Offender, only to have a college
admissions office assume she has falsified her application when a background
check erroneously reveals the Youthful Offender adjudication as a criminal
conviction.
The prevalence of criminal convictions in the general population and
the racial disparities found at all stages of the criminal justice system
compounded by the prevalence of errors in criminal history information raise
grave concerns about the collection and use of criminal history information in
making admissions decisions.
28

V. Higher Education and
	 Promotion of Public Safety
Higher education opens doors of opportunity, enhances critical thinking, and
leads to better and more stable employment. Studies of recidivism rates of
people who attend college while in prison, as well as those with criminal
records who attend college following release, show that a college education
dramatically reduces recidivism. Post-secondary educational programs have
been shown to reduce recidivism by approximately 40 percent (New York
State Sentencing Commission 2007). A research brief prepared by the Open
Society Institute (1997) reported on a Texas study in which participation in
higher education lowered recidivism to 15 percent, 13 percent and under 1
percent for people who earned an associate’s, bachelors, and master’s degree,
respectively. In contrast, the general recidivism rate hovers around 63 percent
nationally (Vacca 2004). A study of recidivism rates among women showed
that only 7.7 percent of those who took college courses in prison returned
to prison after release, compared to 29.9 percent of those who did not
participate in the college program (Fine et al. 2001). State-level studies in
Texas (Tracy & Johnson, 1994), California (Chase & Dickover 1983), Alabama,
and Maryland (Stevens & Ward 1997) have, over the course of many years,
shown significant reductions in recidivism associated with higher education in
correctional settings.
There is less information about the impact of post-release college education
on recidivism. We do know, however, that people with college educations
generally have substantially less involvement in the criminal justice system
than do people without higher education. U.S. Department of Justice data
show that 13 percent of incarcerated people and 24 percent of people on
probation had a postsecondary education compared with 48 percent of the
general population (Harlow 2003). The College and Community Fellowship,
one of a few organizations that works directly with formerly incarcerated
individuals who are in college in New York City, has tracked success rates.
The program, housed at the City University of New York Graduate Center, has
enrolled more than 200 formerly incarcerated people in its first seven years
and reports a recidivism rate of less than one percent. None of the students
were re-incarcerated (Haberman 2006; College and Community Fellowship
2007).
Higher education is also a pathway to a productive, healthy and fulfilling life.
It is strongly associated with improved employment prospects and future
earnings. The Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University
found a clear relationship between employment rates and level of education
for African Americans. Higher education significantly increases employment
rates among African Americans with 86 percent of college educated African
Americans employed compared to 57 percent of high school graduates and a
mere 33 percent of high school dropouts (Sum et al. 2007).

29

At least eight out of ten of the fastest growing jobs in the U.S. require some
postsecondary education (U.S. Department of Education 2003). A college
graduate is expected to earn more than twice as much as a high school
dropout, and even one year of college is estimated to increase lifetime
earnings by 5 to 15 percent (National Governor’s Association 2003). The
median earnings for full-time employees were $28,800 for a person with
a high school diploma compared to $46,300 for a person with a bachelor’s
degree. Increases in annual earnings associated with higher levels of formal
education persist throughout a person’s lifetime. The U.S. Census Bureau
reports that the lifetime earnings for people with a high school diploma are
$1.2 million, compared to $2.1 million for people who obtain a bachelor’s
degree.
There are larger social benefits associated with increases in higher education
- ranging from the expansion of knowledge to helping people become better
parents, more informed voters and more engaged citizens (Joint Economic
Committee in January 2000). Colleges and universities promote public safety
in the larger community when they open their doors to people with criminal
records who demonstrate the commitment and qualifications to pursue a
college education.

At least eight out of ten of
the fastest growing jobs
in the U.S. require some
postsecondary education
(U.S. Department of
Education 2003).

30

VI. Recommendations for
Reintegrative Justice: Making
College Accessible to People
with Criminal Records

The role of education in American society was eloquently stated by Chief
Justice Earl Warren in the historic Brown v. Board of Education decision: 8
It [education]is required in the performance of our most basic public
responsibilities, even service in the armed forces. It is the very foundation of
good citizenship. Today it is a principal instrument in awakening the child to
cultural values, in preparing him for later professional training, and in helping
him to adjust normally to his environment. In these days, it is doubtful that any
child may reasonably be expected to succeed in life if he is denied the opportunity
of an education. Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide
it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms. (Brown, 347 U.S.
at 493).
Rather than excluding people with criminal records, colleges and universities
can fulfill their commitment to equal opportunity and contribute to a stronger
and safer future for the country by welcoming otherwise qualified students
with criminal records into their ranks, and, where appropriate, offering support
services.

The principles of Brown v. Board of Education were extended to institutions of higher education in
1956 in Hawkins v. Board of Control, 350 U.S. 413,414.

8

31

Recommendation:
Colleges and universities should refrain from engaging
in CJI screening.
Almost 40 percent of the colleges and universities surveyed do not use CJI in
their application process and there was no indication from the survey results
or other data that those campuses are any less safe than those that do use CJI.
This is not surprising given what we know about the lack of any demonstrable
link between campus safety and students with criminal records. There is
no evidence that screening for criminal histories increases campus safety,
nor is there any evidence suggesting that students with criminal records
commit crimes on campus in any way or rate that differs from students
without criminal records. On the contrary, the Olszewska study leads to the
conclusion that the practice of inquiring into applicants’ criminal background,
school judicial background, and military discharge information may not be an
effective means of reducing campus crime because there is no statistically
significant difference in the rate of campus crime between institutions
of higher education that explore undergraduate applicants’ disciplinary
background and those that do not (Olszewska 2007). There is, however,
considerable evidence that using CJI as part of the college admissions
screening process will disproportionately impact young men and women
of color. There is also evidence that obtaining a college education greatly
reduces the likelihood of recidivism and improves a range of life outcomes
from employment, to health and mental health functioning. Because broad
access to higher education is good for public safety and the economic growth
and well-being of the country as a whole, colleges and universities should
refrain from engaging in CJI screening.

32

Secondary Recommendations:
If an institution continues to perform CJI screening, it should adopt policies
and prodecures that will help mitigate the negative effects of such screening.
The policy should be fair and consistent and should be formalized in writing
so that all staff know what the policy is and do not consider criminal
convictions outside of the written guidelines. A written policy will also make
the process more transparent and will give notice to prospective students so
that they are aware of what will be required to gain admission to the school.
Policies and their outcomes should be evaluated periodically through data
collection and analysis to determine whether using CJI in college admissions
decisions is actually necessary. We suspect that through the collection of
data regarding incoming students and their behavior while on campus,
admissions officers will discover that the crime rate while on campus is no
higher for students with prior criminal records than it is for other students.
Such a finding would lead to the conclusion that criminal history screening
is not predictive of future behavior on a college campus, and is costly, timeconsuming, and counter-productive.

1. Remove CJI disclosure requirement from initial application
for admission.
Disclosure should be required only after the initial admission decision is
made. All applicants who have received a conditional offer of acceptance can
be sent an inquiry about any felony convictions within the preceding five years
(see recommendation 2 below). Limiting CJI inquiries to applicants who have
been admitted ensures that those with records are considered for admission
under the same criteria as all other applicants. It also reduces the likelihood
that qualified and deserving individuals with criminal records will be
discouraged from applying. Limiting the number of records that admissions
staff must review and investigate to applicants who are conditionally admitted
will allow them to spend more time evaluating the individual circumstances
of college applicants with a criminal record.

33

2. Limit disclosure requirement to specific types of convictions.
a) Only convictions for felonies, not misdemeanors or infractions.
Misdemeanor convictions, which rarely involve incarceration and which, as
noted in Section IV, have dramatically increased in number over the past
decade, should not be included in any disclosure requirements. Convicted
misdemeanants are commonly accused of offenses such as underage drinking,
turnstyle jumping, dog leash violations, and driving without a license—
offenses which do not have any impact on public safety.
b) Only felony convictions imposed within the past five years.
This limitation is supported by research showing that with time, a person with
a criminal record is no more likely to commit a crime than a person without
a criminal record. Depending on the offense and the age at which it was
committed, after the passage of 4½ to 8 years, if no further arrests have taken
place, an individual has a minimal risk of re-offending (Blumstein & Nakamura
2009).
c) Only convictions for felonies that were committed after the individual’s
nineteenth birthday.
States differ with respect to the age at which an individual can be prosecuted
as a juvenile as opposed to an adult. A fourteen-year-old in one state
might be prosecuted as an adult and end up with a criminal record while a
seventeen-year-old in another state might be prosecuted as a juvenile for the
same offense and end up with a clean slate. In addition, states confer various
forms of Youthful Offender adjudications which remove criminal convictions
from the records of young people between the ages of thirteen and twentytwo, depending on the state. Because of the lack of uniformity it is nearly
impossible to compare the records of applicants from different states in a way
that is fair and equitable. A viable solution is to limit disclosure to convictions
for felonies commited after age nineteen. This acknowledges the rationale
underlying the distinction between adult and juvenile criminal processes:
society’s recognition that crimes committed before a certain age are the result
of immature behavior not likely to be repeated with age and maturity, and
society’s commitment to the idea that an individual who commits a criminal
act as a juvenile is more amenable to rehabilitation (ABA Resolution 102A
February 2010).

34

3. Establish admissions criteria that are fair and evidence-based.
a) Remove barriers to admission of individuals who are under some form of
community supervision.
Terms of community supervision (probation) vary depending upon state
law and state and local early discharge policies and practices. In some
jurisdictions community supervision extends over five years, ten years, or a
lifetime. Barring college admission in such cases is therefore tantamount to
a policy of blanket denial. Terms of supervision also vary depending on the
nature of the criminal conviction. Colleges and universities should regard
community supervision as an added support that will help the student be
successful rather than as a bar to admission.
b) Avoid policies that impose blanket denials for particular crimes.
Admissions officers should refrain from imposing a policy that creates a
blanket denial for any type of offense. Careful individual evaluation should be
undertaken in every case where a criminal conviction is considered as a factor
for admission.
c) Provide an opportunity to document personal growth and rehabilitation.
Applicants who have disclosed a criminal record should be encouraged to
provide information about their rehabilitation, including, but not limited to:
	
• a copy of the certificate of disposition from the court in which
		 the conviction occurred along with a personal statement explaining
		 the circumstances surrounding the conviction, the lessons learned,
		 insights gained and personal changes that have occurred since the
		 conviction;
	
• letters of recommendation from any individual who may be able to
		 speak to the applicant’s rehabilitation or good conduct since the
		 conviction;
	
• documents showing the applicant’s participation in or successful
		 completion of programming while incarcerated;
	
• documents showing the applicant’s participation in any re-entry
		 program upon release, including vocational and training
		 achievements;
	
• documents showing the applicant’s participation in a community
		 service program or showing community service achievements;
	
• documents showing participation in or successful completion of a
		 substance abuse, anger management, domestic violence, or other
		 program;
	
• letters or documents regarding any work experience the applicant
		 may have had;
	
• a Certificate of Rehabilitation, Certificate of Relief from Disabilities,
		 Certificate of Good Conduct, Pardon, or like document.

35

d) Avoid requiring applicant to produce his “official” criminal history record
information.
When an individual requests his or her own criminal history record
information from the state central repository this information is private. In
some states the information on the record includes information that cannot
be disclosed to the public, including employers and educational institutions.
It may include information that has been legally sealed, expunged or is
confidential under state law. In some cases it contains information that the
applicant cannot legally be required to disclose. If an admissions officer
wants to know about any criminal convictions, disclosure of a certificate
of dispostion should be sufficient and will avoid disclosure of otherwise
confidential information.

4. Base admissions decisions on assessments that are
well-informed and unbiased.
a) Develop in-house expertise.
Admissions offices should institute a training program to equip staff to
interpret criminal records, including differences among the states in how they
define specific crimes and reportable offenses. Staff should be familiar with
the research on disparities in the criminal justice system and the link between
higher education and desistance from crime and should keep abreast of
new information regarding collateral consequences of a criminal conviction.
Admission officers may find it helpful to develop a decision-making panel with
a broad range of expertise. Conferring veto power upon any one individual, on
the other hand, should be avoided.

36

b) Perform an assessment and multi-factor analysis to determine whether a
past criminal offense justifies rejection.
It is not enough to conclude that a criminal record reflects a “poor moral
character.” Rather, there should be a direct relationship between the specific
circumstances surrounding the criminal conviction and the individual’s status
as a student. If there is something about the person’s criminal record that
gives rise to a concern that he or she will engage in criminal activity as a
student, then it is appropriate to refuse or defer admission. But each case
should be individually assessed in the context of the person’s desire to be a
college student and a multi-factor analysis should be done to determine (a)
whether or not there is a high probability that the person will re-offend on
campus and (b) whether the denial of admission will undermine public policy.
The following factors should be considered:
	
• The age of the person at the time of the criminal offense and how
		 much time has elapsed since its occurrence;
	
• The nature of the offense and whether it bears a direct relationship
		 to the person’s status as a student;
	
• Whether the person is more likely to engage in future criminal
		 conduct than similarly situated students who do not have a criminal 	
		 record based on information submitted regarding rehabilitation and
		 the low risk of re-offending (see below);
	
• Whether the institution’s legitimate interest in protecting property,
		 safety and the welfare of the college community will be put at risk if
		 the person is admitted;
	
• Whether a negative decision would undermine important public and
		 institutional policies, such as:
	
• promoting equal access to educational opportunity and
		 preventing the exclusion of people of color who are
		 disproportionately represented in the criminal justice
		 population because of racial profiling and other discriminatory
		 practices;
	
• promoting campus diversity;
	
• supporting rehabilitation and public safety by offering the
		 benefits of higher education known to improve life chances and
		 reduce recidivism.
c) Failure to disclose should not be the grounds for automatic rescission of an
offer of admission or expulsion.
Given the confusion that characterizes criminal record-keeping and the
uncertainty about one’s rights and responsibilities to disclose or not disclose
a record, college admissions officials should not assume that students have
deliberately lied. The student or applicant should be afforded a chance to
explain his or her understanding of what was asked and answered. This
should be reviewed by the staff with expertise in understanding criminal
history information.

37

5. Establish procedures that are transparent and consistent
with due process.
a) Inform students of the reason for the withdrawal of an offer of admission.
Colleges and universities should be transparent about informing applicants
that their criminal record was the reason for rejection or withdrawal of
admission. Transparency will help prevent admissions decisions based on
inaccuracies endemic to criminal justice record-keeping in the U.S. The
applicant should be given the opportunity to correct a mistake in the criminal
history record or background check that may have led to the incorrect
assumption that the applicant failed to disclose a past conviction, and to
explain the basis for their original response.
b) Applicants should be afforded the right of appeal.
The appeals process should be designed to encourage applicants to pursue
admission rather than to discourage further efforts to enroll. An admissions
professional trained in criminal justice issues will be able to assist applicants
with criminal records in providing the documentation and information needed
for reconsideration.

6. Offer support and advocacy.
a) Provide on-campus support services for students who have criminal records.
Access to a range of support services will increase a student’s chance to
succeed and lessen the potential for harrassment or surveillance. Colleges
can develop their own program or partner with service organizations with
a proven record of success. Model programs include the College Initiative
which helps people enroll in college following their release from prison, the
College and Community Fellowship Program housed at the City University of
New York which provides mentoring, tuition and academic support to help
formerly incarcerated women make the transition to academic life, and Project
Rebound, which operates out of San Francisco State University and provides
counseling on balancing academic responsibilities with the responsibilities
of the parole or probation process, and assists with tutoring, financial aid,
and financial supports that help defray the cost of books, transportation and
meals.
b) Provide information and assistance when a prospective student’s chosen
field bars individuals with criminal records.
Rather than discouraging students from entering a profession which prohibits
the licensing or certification of individuals with criminal records, colleges
should inform such students about ways to overcome those barriers, such
as administrative waivers, certificates of rehabilitation and other forms of
advocacy. In this way, students will be informed about potential barriers but
not discouraged from pursuing a course of study that may lead to the desired
career goal. We further recommend that colleges and universities become
proactive in convincing licensing boards and other professional certification
entities that students with past criminal records who successfully complete
a course of study and have been positive members of the campus community
should not face bars to employment for which they are otherwise qualified.

38

Programs that Work
The College Initiative (CI) was founded in 2002 by
an educator with years of experience developing
in-prison college programs. The loss of Federal
Pell and New York State TAP grants for prisoners
in 1994-1995 (primary funding source for
higher education program in prisons until that
time) was a motivating factors in her deceision
to address the critical need for access to higher
education for people in reentry. CI is a project
of the Fund for the City of New York with offices
at The Fortune Society’s headquarters in Long
Island City and LaGuardia Community College,
both located in Long Island City, Queens. CI is
part of the CUNY-wide Black Male Initiative and
works in collaboration with College Opportunity
to Prepare for Employment (COPE) on ten CUNY
campuses. To help ease the return to school, CI
offers fall, spring and intensive summer College
Prep Program. Additionally, most new enrollees
are paired with successful CI students who are
trained as peer mentors. In its first four years, the
Initiative helped 167 former state prisoners enroll
in 27 different colleges and universities in New
York. The Initiative offers a preparatory program
called “Bridge to College” that helps students,
most of whom have been out of school for many
years, refresh their verbal and math skills. The
College and Community Fellowship Program
(CCF), a not-for-profit organization, is housed
at the City University of New York. It provides
mentoring, tuition and academic support to help
formerly incarcerated women make the transition
to academic life. It provides a small stipend to
participants each semester as well as an array of

39

social supports to help participants address other
facets of reentry including family reunification, and
balancing school, family and work. Between 2000
and 2008, 234 people have enrolled in college
through CCF. To date, 14 women have earned
Associate’s degrees, 49 have earned Bachelor’s
degrees, 30 were awarded Master’s degrees, and
one participant has earned a Doctoral degree. The
recidivism rate among participants is less than
one percent. Project Rebound, one of the nation’s
oldest higher educational support programs for
formerly incarcerated people, was founded in
1967 by the late Professor John Irwin, a noted
criminologist and formerly incarcerated person.
The project operates out of San Francisco State
University providing special admissions services
for people with criminal records (people leaving
jail and prison and people in pre-trial court
diversion). The program provides counseling on
balancing academic responsibilities with the
responsibilities of parole or probation, making the
transition from a secure institution to academia,
and orienting new students to the rules of the
university. Finally, the Second Chance Program
is a part of the City College of San Francisco and
recruits, enrolls, and supports people with criminal
records in pursuing an academic degree. It orients
students to colleges, helps them negotiate the
registration process, and assists with tutoring,
financial aid, and financial supports that help
defray the cost of books, transportation and meals.

7. Evaluate the policy periodically to determine whether it is
justified.
Colleges and universities that screen for criminal records should begin to
collect the data necessary to analyze whether students with a prior criminal
record are any more likely to commit a criminal offense when enrolled as a
student than their counterparts who do not have criminal records. There are
no existing empirical data indicating that a campus is made safer by criminal
history screening. If screening does not, in fact, help in the prediction of
increased rates of criminal behavior, then it serves little purpose. It is both
unfair and unwise to continue to screen for criminal records if it does not
serve any legitimate purpose and may have adverse impact.

40

41

VII. Conclusion

There is growing support for returning higher education to correctional
facilities. The Second Chance Act, which passed Congress on March 11, 2008,
and the Senate and House versions of H.R. 4137, the College Opportunity and
Affordability Act of 2007 all include provisions that improve access to higher
education for people during their incarceration. It is ironic that as the doors
to higher education are reopening in prisons, they are closing on the outside.
Given what we know about the commission of serious crimes on campus—
that they are most often committed by students without criminal records excluding people with records from attending college will only serve to create
a false sense of security.
Sensible and proven measures to increase campus safety include education
and discussion among students on campus about excessive use of alcohol,
education about what constitutes healthy and consensual sexual relationships,
campus-wide responses to hate crimes, and making changes to the physical
environment of a college such as improving security in dormitories. Barring
people with criminal records from attending college does not improve
campus safety, but does undermine public safety in the larger community.
Finally, because of the enormous racial disparities found at every stage of the
country’s criminal justice system, policies and practices that exclude people
with criminal records from institutions of higher learning are a setback to the
gains earned through the long and arduous struggle of civil rights activists to
open higher education to all people, regardless of race or ethnicity.

42

References
Alexander, M. 2010. The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of
Colorblindness. New York: The New Press.
American Bar Association. 2010. Report To The House Of Delegates.
Recommendation Criminal Justice Section Commission on Homelessness and
Poverty, Standing Committee On Legal Aid & Indigent Defendants Available
at http://www.abanow.org/house-of-delegates-resolutions-2010-midyearmeeting/
American Bar Association. 1998, The Federalization of Criminal Law. Chicago:
Author.
Baum, K. and Klaus, P. 2005. Violent Victimization of College Students. Special
Report, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of
Justice.
Baldus, D.C., Woodworth, G., Zuckerman, D., Weiner, N. A., & Broffit, B. (1998).
Racial discrimination in the post-Furman era: An empirical and legal overview,
with recent findings from Philadelphia, Cornell Law Review, 83: 1638 – 1770.
Blumstein, A. and Nakamura, K. 2009. Redemption in the presence of
widespread criminal background checks. Criminology 47(2): 327-359
Bureau of Justice Statistics. 2009. Survey of State Criminal Justice History
Information Systems, 2008: A Criminal Justice Systems Information Policy Report.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
Bureau of Justice Statistics. 2001. Use and Management of Criminal History
Record Information: A Comprehensive Report, 2001 Update. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice.
Chase, J. and Dickover, R. 1983. University education at Folsom prison: An
evaluation, Journal of Correctional Education 34, 92-96.
Cole, D. 1999: No Equal Justice: Race and Class in the American Criminal Justice
System. New York: The New Press.
College and Community Fellowship. 2007. CCF Facts. http://www.
collegeandcommunity.org/
Dieter, R.C. 1998. The Death Penalty in Black and White: Who Lives, Who Dies,
Who Decides. Washington DC: Death Penalty Information Center.
Durose, M. R., Farole, D. and Rosenmerkel, S.P. 2009. Felony Sentences in State
Courts, 2006. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.
Durose, M. R. and Langan, P. A. 2007. Felony Sentences in State Courts, 2004.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
Federal Bureau of Investigation (F.B.I.). 2009. Crime in the United States, 2008.
Washington, DC: Author.

Fine, M., Boudin, K., Bowen, I., Clark, J., Hylton, D., Martinez, M., Roberts, R.,
Smart, P., Torre, M., and Upegui, D. 2001. Changing Minds: The Impact of College
in Prison. http://www.gc.cuny.edu/studies/studies_index.htm.
Fisher, B. S. 1995. Crime and fear on campuses. The Annals of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science. 539, 85-101.
Government Accountability Office (GAO). 2005. Report to Government
Requesters: Various Factors May Limit the Impacts of Federal Laws That Provide
for Denial of Selected Benefits. Washington, DC: GAO (GAO-05-238)
Glaze, L.E. and. Bonczar. T.P. 2009. Probation and Parole in the United States,
2008. NCJ 228230. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of
Justice Statistics. Available at bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/ppus08.pdf.
Golub, A. Johnson, B.D. & Dunlap, E. 2007. The Race/ethnicity disparity in
misdemeanor marijuana arrests in New York City. Criminology & Public Policy,
6(1), 131 – 64.
Haberman, C. 2006. A fresh start needs hands willing to help. The New York
Times. June 13. http://select.nytimes.com/2006/06/13/nyregion/13nyc.
html?_r=1&oref=slogin
Harlow, C.W. 2003. Education and Correctional Populations. Bureau of Justice
Statistics Special Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
Harrison, P. M. and Beck, A.J. 2005. Prisoners in 2004. Bureau of Justice
Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
Hart, T. C. 2003. Violent Victimization of College Students. Washington, DC:
Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice.
Human Rights Watch. 2000. Punishment and prejudice: Racial disparities in the
war on drugs. New York: Author. Available at http://www.hrw.org/reports/2000/
usa/.
Jaschik, S. 2007. Innocent (applicant) until proven guilty. Higher Education
Review. March 6. http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/03/06/common.
Joint Economic Committee, United States Congress. 2000. Investment in
Education: Private and Public Returns. Washington, DC.
Kalegeros, S. 2003. Annotated Bibliography: Racial Disparities In The Criminal
Justice System. Washington DC: The Sentencing Project.
Levine, H. and Small, D.P. 2008. Marijuana Arrest Crusade: Racial Bias and Police
Policy in New York City, 1997-2007. New York: New York Civil Liberties Union.
Luna, E. 2005. The Overcriminalization Phenomenon. American University Law
Review. 54: 703-743.

Markowitz, M. W. and Brown-Jones, D. 2000. The System in Black and White.
New York: Praeger.
Mufioz, E. A., Lopez, D.A. and Stewart, E. 1998. Misdemeanor sentencing
decisions: The cumulative disadvantage effect of “Gringo Justice,” Hispanic
Journal of Behavioral Science 20(3): 298-319.
National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL). 2009. Minor
Crimes, Massive Waste: The Terrible Toll of America’s Broken Misdemeanor
Court. Washington DC: Author. Available at http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/
defenseupdates/misdemeanor/$FILE/Report.pdf
National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University.
1994. Rethinking Rites of Passage: Substance Abuse on America’s Campuses. New
York City. Author.
National Governor’s Association. 2003. Ready for Tomorrow: Helping All
Students Achieve Secondary and Postsecondary Success, A Guide for Governors.
Washington DC: Author.
New York Attorney General. 1999. New York City Police “Stop and Frisk”
Practices: A Report to the People of New York From the Office of the Attorney
General. Albany, N.Y.: Author.
New York State Bar Association. 2006. Re-entry and Reintegration: The Road to
Public Safety. Available at www.nysba.org).
New York State Commission on Sentencing Reform. 2007. The Future of
Sentencing in New York: A Preliminary Proposal for Reform. Albany, N.Y.: Author.
http://criminaljustice.state.ny.us/legalservices/sentencingreform/2007prelims
entencingreformrpt.pdf
Olszewska, M.J.V. 2007. Undergraduate Admission Application as a Campus Crime
Mitigation Measure: Disclosure of Applicants’ Disciplinary Background Information
and Its Relationship to Campus Crime. Unpublished Dissertation for the degree
of Doctor of Education East Carolina University.
Open Society Institute, Criminal Justice Initiative. 1997. Education as Crime
Prevention: Providing Education to Prisoners. Research Brief, Occasional Series
Paper 2. http://www.prisonpolicy.org/scans/research_brief__2.pdf
Pew Charitable Trusts. 2010. One in 31: The Long Reach of American
Corrections. Washington, DC: Author.
Sabol, W., West, H. and Cooper, M. 2009. Prisoners in 2008. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
SEARCH. 2009. Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, 2008:
Criminal Justice Information Policy Report. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice
Statistics.

Skiba, R.J., Michael, R.S., Nardo, A.C. & Peterson, R.L. 2000. The color of
discipline: Sources of racial and gender disproportionality in school punishment.
Policy Research Report #SRS1. Bloomington, Indiana, Indiana Education Policy
Center.
Stevens, D. J. and Ward, C. S. 1997. College education and recidivism:
Educating criminals meritorious, Journal of Correctional Education 48: 106-111.
Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). 2007.
Results from the 2007 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: National
Findings. Washington, DC: Office of Applied Studies. Department of Health and
Human Services. available at
http://www.oas.samhsa.gov/nsduh/2k7nsduh/2k7Results.pdf
Sum, A., Khatiwads, I. McLaughlin, J. and Tobar, P. 2007. The Educational
Attainment of the Nation’s Young Black Men and Their Recent Labor Market
Experiences: What Can Be Done to Improve Their Future Labor Market and
Educational Prospects? Boston, Massachusetts: Center for Labor Market Studies,
Northeastern University.
Tracy, C. and Johnson C. 1994. Review of Various Outcome Studies Relating Prison
Education to Reduced Recidivism, Huntsville Texas: Windham School System.
Uggen, Christopher, Manza, Jeff and Thompson, Melissa. 2006. Citizenship,
democracy, and the civic reintegration of criminal offenders. Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science 605: 281-310.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Adult and Vocational Education.
2003. The Economic Imperative for Improving Education. In The High School
Leadership Summit, Issue Papers. Washington D.C.: Author
United States Department of Education. 2001. 2001 Report to Congress. The
Incidence of Crime on the Campuses of U.S. Postsecondary Education Institutions.
Washington, D.C.: Author.
Vacca, J. 2004. Educated prisoners are less likely to return to prison. Journal of
Correctional Education, 55, 297-305.
Wald, J. and Losen, C. 2003. Deconstructing the School-to-Prison Pipeline: New
Directions for Youth Development. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Weissman, M. 2008. The school to prison pipeline and criminalizing youth:
Costs, consequences and alternatives. The Link, 6(4), 6 – 9, 15-17.
Western, B. Schiraldi, V. and Zeidenberg, Z. 2003. Education and Incarceration.
Washington, DC: Justice Policy Institute. available at
http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/03-08_REP_
EducationIncarceration_AC-BB.pdf
Wheelock, D. and Uggen, C. 2006. Race, Poverty and Punishment: The Impact of
Criminal Sanctions on Racial, Ethnic, and Socioeconomic Inequality. NPC Working
Paper #06-15. available at http://www.npc.umich.edu/publications/working_
papers/?publication_id=79&

39 West 19th Street, 10 Floor
New York, New York 10011
T: 212.691.1911 F: 212.675.0825

115 East Jefferson Street, Suite 300
Syracuse, New York 13202
T: 315.422.5638 F: 315.471.4924
A United Way Agency

www.communityalternatives.org

25 Chapel Street, 7th Floor
Brooklyn, New York 11201
T: 718.858.9658 F: 718.858.9670