August 2019

Perspective
EXPERT INSIGHTS ON A TIMELY POLICY ISSUE

LOIS M. DAVISHigher Education Programs in Prison
What We Know Now and What We Should Focus on Going ForwardE

ach year, more than 700,000 incarcerated individuals leave federal and state
prisons and return to local communities where they will have to competewith individuals in those communities for jobs. In today’s economy, having a college education is necessary to compete for many jobs; according to
Georgetown Center on Education and the Workforce (Carnevel, Smith, and Strohl,2013), two-thirds of job postings will require some level of college education by
2020.1 The Bureau of Labor Statistics lists 174 occupations as having a typical entrylevel education requirement of a bachelor’s degree, and it projects that employment
in these occupations will grow by 10 percent over the next decade (Torpey, 2018).
Those who have been in prison are often at a disadvantage in this competition
because they typically return to communities without college education or, for thatmatter, any higher education plans. The stakes for ex-offenders are higher than they
are for others; being able to land a job can mean the difference between successfullytransitioning back into a community and returning to prison.
For incarcerated students, a key obstacle to obtaining a college education iscost. Prior to 1994, those who were incarcerated were eligible to receive Pell Grants
to help cover the costs of participating in these programs. However, the 1994
amendment to the Higher Education Act (HEA) eliminated Pell Grant eligibility
for students incarcerated in federal and state prisons (Crayton and Neusteter, 2008).
C O R P O R AT I O NThis led to a dramatic reduction in the number of inmatesparticipating in these programs and a drop in the numberof programs being offered.2 For example, participation by
incarcerated individuals in college courses nationwide fell
from 14 percent in 1991 to 7 percent in 2004 (New YorkState Bar Association, 2016). In terms of the number ofstates that offered college courses, an analysis of Bureauof Justice Statistics data showed that 59 percent of statesoffered college programs in prison in 1990; following the1994 amendment to the HEA, this dropped to 31 percent ofstates in 1995. By 2005, only 36 percent of states reported
offering such programs (Turner, 2018).
There has been a resurgence of interest in recent years
in expanding higher education in prison at the federal andstate levels, particularly expansions that offer a path todegrees or industry-recognized credentials. In this regard,

Abbreviations2

ABE

adult basic education

CTE

career and technical education

ED

U.S. Department of Education

GAO

U.S. Government Accountability Office

GED

General Educational Development

HEA

Higher Education Act

NCCCS

NCDPS Community Corrections and theNorth Carolina Community College System

NCDPS

North Carolina Department of Public Safety

PIAAC

Programme for the International Assessmentof Adult Competencies

PFS

pay for success

PSE

postsecondary education

an important initiative that has helped to propel the creationof college programs for incarcerated individuals was the U.S.
Department of Education (ED) three-year Second ChancePell Experimental Sites Initiative in 2015 that temporarily
lifted the federal ban on Pell Grants to incarcerated individuals who otherwise met Title IV eligibility requirements(ED, 2015).3 Under the initiative, Pell Grants can be used tohelp pay for incarcerated individuals’ PSE and training, aslong as an individual is eligible to be released from prison.4
Sixty-four colleges and universities in 26 states participatedin this experiment, which allowed up to 12,000 students
to receive Pell Grants to pursue a degree or credential (ED,2019). Recently, the ED announced that it will expand
the Second Chance Pell program to add new colleges tothe experimental sites (Schwartz, 2019). Many educators,
policymakers, and researchers view the Second Chance Pell
Experimental Sites Initiative as an important opportunity to
expand access to PSE programs and to test out the feasibilityof making Pell Grants available to those who would otherwise meet the Title IV eligibility requirements.
In addition, several pieces of legislation have been
introduced that could help to build on these efforts. For
example, the bipartisan Restoring Education and Learning
Act of 2019 would amend section 401(b) of the Higher
Education Act of 1965 to restore Pell Grant eligibility
to incarcerated individuals in federal and state correctional institutions (U.S. House of Representatives, 2019a;
U.S. Senate, 2019a). The Promoting Reentry Through
Education in Prisons Act of 2019 would establish an Officeof Correctional Education within the Bureau of Prisons toimprove correctional education programming, with thegoal of ensuring access to quality programs across federal

correctional institutions (U.S. House of Representatives,
2019b; U.S. Senate, 2019b).
The next HEA reauthorization could provide an
opportunity to restore Pell Grant eligibility for incarcerated
students. House Education and Labor Committee Chairman
Robert C. Scott’s 2018 bill to reauthorize the HEA, the Aim
Higher Act (U.S. House of Representatives, 2018), would
have removed the existing ban. One of the principles forreforming the HEA identified by the White House was that
Congress should provide targeted federal financial aid toprisoners eligible for release as a way to improve employmentoutcomes and reduce recidivism (White House, 2019).
There are different perspectives about whether PSE
programs in prison should lead to academic degrees orindustry-recognized credentials. In general, many educators and criminal justice experts feel that PSE programsin prison should result in some type of credential (be it
an education certificate or PSE degree) that is recognizedby employers, colleges, and universities. Such experts also
argue that the credentials earned should be “stackable” andthat the programs and earned class credits be transferrable
to other postsecondary institutions;5 the goal is to ensurethat coursework in prison can contribute to individuals’
post-release efforts, thus furthering their education andadvancing their careers (Davis et al., 2014).
Providing access to college education is one path that
can help reduce the nation’s substantial recidivism rates.
This Perspective offers a summary of what is known about
the educational attainment and deficits of those incarcerated in state and federal prisons, about the effectivenessof educational programs in helping to reduce recidivism,
and our assessment of what key issues remain to beaddressed. This summary is largely drawn from the RAND
Corporation’s body of research in this area.

What We Know
For Successful Reentry, We Need toAddress Educational and Skills Deficits
Many individuals incarcerated in U.S. prisons are disadvantaged in terms of low educational attainment, which,when they get released, makes it challenging for themto find employment that provides a living wage. The
Programme for the International Assessment of Adult
Competencies (PIAAC) is the most recent survey of theliteracy and numeracy skills of individuals incarcerated
in U.S. state and federal prisons. As such, it represents animportant data point in our understanding of the education needs of this population.
According to the November 2016 PIAAC report,
30 percent of individuals incarcerated in U.S. state andfederal prisons lack a high-school diploma or General
Educational Development (GED) equivalency. In addition,
one-third of U.S. incarcerated adults performed at low levels of literacy and about one-half of them had low levels ofnumeracy skills compared with the general U.S. population(Rampey et al., 2016).
At the same time, the PIAAC results suggest that interest in education programs among incarcerated adults is high,with 42 percent having completed some level of education
during their current prison term (particularly GED completion). Yet only one out of five (approximately 21 percent)were currently studying for a formal degree or credential,

3and of those not currently enrolled in an educational program, 79 percent reported an interest in doing so.6
The PIAAC study also highlighted the fact that literacy
and numeracy skills are not often used in the prison jobs
available to incarcerated individuals. Although 61 percent
reported having a prison job, many never had the opportunity to use their literacy or numeracy skills in that job.
For example, 47 percent of incarcerated adults with prisonjobs reported never reading directions or instructions aspart of their current prison job, and 82 percent reported
never using or calculating fractions, decimals, or percentages (Rampey et al., 2016).7 Furthermore, only 10 percent
reported using a computer in their prison job assignments.

Correctional Education and PSE Programs,
Including College Coursework, Are
Effective in Reducing Recidivism
The PIAAC study shows that the prison population isprimed for correctional education programs that canhelp them when they are released, but the real question iswhether such programs, when available, actually work—are
they effective in reducing the rampant recidivism that has
resulted in so many ex-offenders ending up back in prison?
In 2013, RAND published the results of a comprehensive
literature review of 30 years of studies of correctional
education programs and a meta-analysis to assess what is
known about how effective correctional education programs are in helping to reduce recidivism for incarcerated
adults in state prisons (Davis et al., 2013).
The results indicated that individuals who participatedin a correctional education program while incarcerated (e.g.,whether adult basic education [ABE], GED preparation, PSE

4or college education, or vocational training; i.e., career andtechnical education [CTE]) had 43-percent lower odds ofrecidivating than individuals who did not (Davis et al., 2013).
This represents a 13-percentage point reduction in their riskof recidivating three years after being released from prison.
Furthermore, we found that participation in college or
PSE programs reduced an individual’s risk of recidivatingby 16 percentage points compared with those who did notparticipate in correctional education programs (Davis et al.,2013). Put another way, individuals who participate in PSE
programs, including college coursework, while incarcerated
are roughly half as likely to recidivate as those who did notparticipate in any type of correctional education program.
In 2018, RAND updated its literature review to include
37 years of studies of correctional education programsand the meta-analysis to assess the effectiveness of these
programs. Our 2018 meta-analytic results indicated that
individuals who participated in a correctional education
program while incarcerated had 28-percent lower odds ofrecidivating than individuals who did not (Bozick et al.,2018). This represents a 9-percentage point reduction in theirrisk of being reincarcerated three years after being released
from prison. The fact that our original estimates were
somewhat attenuated is the result of adding in more-recent
studies with strong research designs. Still, the 2018 results
continue to indicate that providing incarcerated individuals
with opportunities for education reduces their risk of being
reincarcerated upon release from prison.
Our estimates were based on studies with higherquality research designs—that is, those studies that dida reasonable job of controlling for systematic differences
between the treatment and control groups. Therefore,
these results are not the product of selection bias (i.e.,the result of more-motivated individuals participating incorrectional education).

only the direct costs of correctional education programswith the direct costs of incarceration.8

Correctional Education Is Cost-Effective

Lessons Learned from a Recent College InPrison Program

Establishing that correctional education programs work isimportant; establishing whether they are cost-effectiveis also key because the funding of these programs isdrawing from increasingly constrained state and federal
budgets. The RAND study also showed that correctional
education programs are highly cost-effective. Focusing on
the outcome of recidivism, we used a hypothetical poolof 100 inmates, the direct costs of correctional education
programs and of incarceration itself, and a three-year
reincarceration rate to assess cost-effectiveness. The study
estimated that the direct costs of providing education to
the hypothetical pool of 100 inmates ranged from $140,000
to $174,400 (or $1,400 to $1,744 per inmate). The three-year
reincarceration costs for those who did not receive correctional education were estimated to be between $2.94 million and $3.25 million, compared with $2.07 million and$2.28 million for those who did (Davis et al., 2013). We
then compared the direct costs of providing correctional
education with the direct costs of reincarceration.
As already noted, according to RAND’s research,inmates who participate in correctional education programs have a 13-percentage-point reduction in their riskof returning to prison; this indicates that every $1 invested
in education can reduce future incarceration costs in thenear term. More concretely, we estimated that every dollar
invested in prison education programs saves taxpayers, on
average, between $4 and $5 in three-year reincarceration
costs. This is a conservative estimate in that it compares

Knowing that many incarcerated individuals are interested in participating in correctional education programsand that such programs are both effective and costeffective is valuable, but this knowledge does not tell us
how well such programs work when they are actually
implemented.9 The recent expansion of college programsin prison offers some insights about these implementation
issues that could be helpful to state and federal policymakers interested in expanding these programs. Here,
we focus on lessons learned from one recent initiative—
the Pathways from Prison to Postsecondary Education
initiative, which was designed to address the need for PSE
in prison and the recognition that increased educational
attainment plays a key role in helping formerly incarcerated individuals stay out of prison and become contributing members of families and communities (Vera Instituteof Justice, 2012). Research about North Carolina, one ofthree states participating in the initiative, offers valuable
insights into the successes and challenges of implementing a prison-based college program intended to help
participants continue their education upon release.

North Carolina’s Pathways Program
North Carolina was one of three pilot site states chosen in2013 for the Pathways initiative (Davis and Tolbert, 2019).10
Each state was given incentive funding to offer college
and PSE programming and reentry support services to5incarcerated individuals. To help them obtain a PSE degree
or credential, the pilot states provided participants withPSE during at least the two years prior to their release fromprison.11 Pilot states also were to provide participants withsupport and assistance for entering college and completing
their PSE through the two years following their release fromprison. The educational programs were provided in partnership with local colleges (both community colleges anduniversities).
In North Carolina, the Pathways program was led by
the North Carolina Department of Public Safety (NCDPS)
Office of Reentry Programs and Services in collaboration with the NCDPS Community Corrections and theNorth Carolina Community College System (NCCCS).12
While incarcerated, North Carolina Pathways students
had the option of earning a certificate (12–18 semester
credit courses), a diploma in general education, or an
associate of applied science degree.13 Through Pathways,
the NCDPS hoped that participants would achieve thefollowing core outcomes: college enrollment, persistence,and completion; attainment of certificates, diplomas, anddegrees; gainful employment, either part-time or fulltime, and increased earnings; and reductions in recidivism (Davis and Tolbert, 2019).14

Key Lessons from North Carolina’s Pathways
Program
RAND evaluated the in-prison and community componentsof the North Carolina Pathways program using a multimethod approach (Davis and Tolbert, 2019). A series of key
lessons emerged that help us understand the challenges of
implementing such a program, which we discuss here.15

6In Prison

Implementing a college program with an in-prison component and a community component, such as Pathways,
requires commitment and sacrifices from all the stakeholders involved. Students had to agree to be moved to theprison facilities where the program was being implemented
and to be released to one of three communities that might
have been far away from their families. They also had toagree to remain in medium-custody facilities to complete
the in-prison component of the program. For their part,
correctional facilities had to commit staff time to coordinate the program with other in-prison programming,
agree to allow students to live in separate housing units,
and provide additional studying space. State administrations had to provide 25-percent match funding and staff
time to plan, implement, and manage the program, as
well as agree to such policy changes as inmate transfers to
Pathway-designated facilities and to place education holds
so that students stayed in the designated facilities until they
completed the program. Thus, it takes time to set up thesetypes of programs involving multiple partners.
Having the Pathways program embedded within the
Department of Public Safety was an asset. Having department of corrections senior leadership support and a senioradministrator who was effective within that organization
was key to problem-solving and to getting and maintaining support for the Pathways program at all levels of thedepartment. The administrator understood the concerns ofboth correctional and educational staff and how to address
such concerns.
Pathways demonstrated the continued need for staff
training and support. For many college instructors, teaching in a correctional environment was a new experience,and some found the requirements and procedures to be
onerous or confusing. A key lesson learned was that those
involved in making Pathways work needed clear expectations and defined responsibilities. It also was important toreach out to and educate correctional facilities staff (suchas superintendents, assistant superintendents, correctional
officers, and facility-based education staff) on an ongoingbasis to get them on board and continually reinforce theprogram’s goals and structure.
It is important to structure an in-prison college program to allow enough time for students to build generalcredits and earn certifications prior to release. The experience of Pathways and other in-prison college programs has
been that it can take incarcerated students longer to earncredentials and complete college coursework while incarcerated than it would take if they were out in the community.
This can result from a variety of factors, such as the fact thatstudents needed developmental coursework before being able
to begin in-prison college courses; that fewer courses were
offered per semester; or that students beginning a course in
one facility had to transfer to another facility during theirincarceration or to a minimum-security facility as theyneared the end of their sentence, and the new facility did notoffer the same coursework. Furthermore, in-prison college
programs compete with other rehabilitative programs thatare required (e.g., cognitive behavioral therapy, drug treatment, reentry programs) and must be given a higher priority.
In the Community

Reentry supports are critical for ensuring that students
are able to continue their educational programs upon
returning to the community. As is true for many incarcerated adults, reentry in general can be a very challenging time. Within a few weeks of being released, theIn-prison college programs
compete with otherrehabilitative programs thatare required . . . and mustbe given a higher priority.
Pathways students were expected to enroll in full-timecollege courses; secure part-time employment; find suitable housing arrangements; address transportation needs;
reunite with family members; and, in some cases, resume
parental and financial responsibilities for their families
while managing and seeking treatment for any substanceabuse, depression, anxiety, or other mental health issues.
Housing, employment, and transportation were among
the top referrals to services provided to Pathways students,
followed by family services and substance abuse treatment
services. A key recommendation from our evaluation was
to allow students to initially attend college part-time in thecommunity upon their release from prison to allow themto get acclimated and go through the reentry adjustment
process; doing so can relieve the stress of trying to attend
college full time while also needing to work full time.
Investing in the reentry infrastructure is key. In
North Carolina, the NCDPS used some of its Pathways
funding to help build up the reentry infrastructure in thethree communities to which Pathways students would be
returning. In addition, NCDPS used the funding to hire
Pathways navigators. It was clearly critical to Pathways

7

students’ success for them to have a navigator or a trusted
person of authority who could help link them to reentry
services and assist them both in applying for college andfinancial aid and in signing up for and beginning to takeclasses. Our study also underscored the importance ofrecruiting and training parole probation officers who
were supportive of education and understand the program
enough to work with the Pathways students.
As a result of Pathways, North Carolina changed how
it approaches higher education in prison. The NCDPS
established a PSE advisory committee. In recognition of
the importance of technology in education, the department
also developed its own intranet platform to support PSE
in prison and provided limited internet access for these
programs. Pathways also laid the groundwork for improved
reentry planning, with education becoming a key tenet ofreentry in North Carolina.

Restoring Access to Pell Grants Will Help
Address Some, but Not All, of the Funding
Support Needed for In-Prison College
Programs
Many have viewed the Pell Experimental Initiative as animportant opportunity to expand access to PSE programsand to test out the feasibility of making Pell Grants available to those who would otherwise meet the Title IV eligibility requirements. Although this is true, there remains a
concern about what Pell Grants do and do not cover and, ina broader sense, the overall need for sustainable sources offunding going forward. Here are some things to consider.
Administrative costs of these programs still need tobe addressed. The Second Chance Pell Experimental Sites

8

Initiative covers some of the costs of college programs forincarcerated individuals—but not all of them. Incarcerated
students who receive Pell Grants through this initiative aresubject to cost-of-attendance restrictions, so Pell Grants
can be used to pay only for tuition, fees, books, and supplies required by an individual’s education program (ED,2015).16 Pell Grants cannot be used to cover the administrative costs of higher education institutions or of correctional
facilities associated with implementing the initiative. In its
recent assessment of the Pell Grant Pilot for Incarcerated
Students, the U.S. Government Accountability Office(GAO) noted that officials from eight of the 12 schools
interviewed reported hiring additional staff or allocating
more staff hours to help manage the increased administrative workload. Furthermore, as the evaluation of the North
Carolina Pathways program showed, the administrative
effort required by corrections officials to implement thisin-college program in six prison facilities was substantial(Davis and Tolbert, 2019).
Thus, although the Pell initiative represents animportant infusion of funds to support PSE for incarcerated individuals, such support might be insufficient tosustain the funding needed for these programs over thelong term. It is noteworthy that many of the initial grantapplicants for the Pell initiative indicated that their states
did not provide financial aid for these programs. Indeed,
when the Incarcerated Youth Offender Grants ended in
2010,17 many states lost an important source of federal
funding for PSE.
The degree to which state funds are used to support
college programs in prison varies. States also vary in the
degree to which state funds can be used to support these
programs, with most states funding only CTE programsand apprenticeships. In many states, college programs arepaid for by philanthropy or by the students themselves. In
a 2013 survey of state correctional education directors that
RAND conducted, 28 states reported that PSE courses inprison were paid for primarily by the individual inmate;
16 states reported that families also helped pay for PSE
courses; and 20 states reported that private funding, suchas foundations or individual donations, was also used
to pay for PSE courses (Davis et al., 2014). State funding
for these programs was used by 16 states; only 12 states
reported using college or university funding to cover thecosts of PSE, and very few states used inmate benefits or
welfare funds. Furthermore, in recent years, there has beensome pushback from the public about using state funds
to support college programs for incarcerated individuals.
Thus, there is a need to consider how the administrative
costs of these programs might be funded over the longterm at the state and federal levels.

What Should Be the Focus Going
Forward?
Higher education in prison is clearly effective in reducing
recidivism and improving the chances that an individual will be successful on the outside. In addition, the Pellinitiative has had a dramatic effect in expanding accessto college programs for incarcerated adults18—as seen in
26 states—and is considered an important source of funding for the tuition and other costs associated with these
programs.19 Reinstating access to Pell Grants would help tocontinue the trend of increasing access to college programsfor incarcerated adults. The focus on providing PSE in
prison is growing, and work within the area is continuallyadding to our knowledge base. Still, there a couple of things
that policy and program decisionmakers might consider inmoving the field forward. The following recommendations
draw largely from RAND research on the effectiveness ofcorrectional education, the implementation of in-prison
college programs, and a landscape scan of the field.

Besides Pell Restoration, Consider Options
for Ensuring Long-Term Funding of InPrison College Programs
As noted, philanthropic support and the Pell initiative havebeen important sources of funding for PSE programs, but
federal and state governments also need to consider longterm funding solutions if these programs are to be sustained. As noted earlier, states vary in the degree to whichstate funds are used to support these programs, with college programs in several states supported by philanthropy
or by the students themselves. Furthermore, some statesprohibit the use of state funds for these programs, and the
public might not be supportive of using government funds
for this purpose.
As a result, policymakers involved in supporting college
programs for incarcerated individuals will likely need toconsider additional options for sustaining the funding ofthese programs for the long term. There are some promising
approaches at the state level for funding higher education inprison. For example, California has greatly expanded accessto college programs for incarcerated individuals by using
two funding sources for its PSE programs in prison: (1) aBoard of Governors Fee Waiver, which covers enrollment
fees for qualifying low-income students; and (2) state Senate
Bill 1391, which allows community colleges to offer in-

9PSE programs also might
be good candidates for
pay-for-success (PFS)
demonstration projects that
could be supported at thefederal and state levels.
person courses in both prisons and jails and to be fully reimbursed (Mukamal, Silbert, and Taylor, 2015).
Minnesota uses prison industry funds to help pay for
its associate degree programs, which are offered in eightof its ten adult correctional facilities. These programs use
the Minnesota transfer curriculum, which transfers credits
earned into any two- or four-year state public institution.
After Pell Grant eligibility and the Incarcerated Youth
Offenders grant were eliminated, Minnesota initially usedphone commission funds (surcharges on offender phone
calls) to fund the program. As these funds have decreased
over time, Minnesota moved to using funding from its
prison industry program (known as MINNCOR).
In addition, there is a growing movement amongsuch states as California, Ohio, Indiana, and Maryland
to implement or broaden policies and legislation that giveindividuals time off their sentences for attaining educational milestones, thus helping to make education a more
integral part of rehabilitation.20 Case studies of promising
approaches by states to fund higher education programs

10

would be valuable for capturing lessons learned and disseminating the information broadly among states.
PSE programs also might be good candidates for payfor-success (PFS) demonstration projects that could be supported at the federal and state levels.21 There are various PFS
demonstration projects under way in such areas as juvenile
and criminal justice, supportive housing, homelessness, andvocational training, among others. (For a list of PFS criminal justice–related projects, see Nonprofit Finance Fund,2018.) For example, New York State has a social impact bondinvolving a partnership among the state, private investors, and the Center for Employment Opportunities thatprovides comprehensive employment services to formerly
incarcerated individuals who are at risk of reoffending andhelps prepare them for the workplace (Nonprofit FinanceFund, 2018).22 The ED has also explored the feasibility of
PFS models to improve outcomes for at-risk youth participating in career technical education programs (ED, 2016).
To our knowledge, PFS models have not been undertaken
for in-prison college programs for justice-involved populations. Policymakers might want to consider whether PFS isa promising strategy to help address the long-term fundingneeds of higher education programs in prison.
Finally, the Social Impact Partnerships to Pay for
Results Act (SIPPRA) of 2018 is a possible avenue to fundPFS projects in this area. Congress appropriated $100 million for the SIPPRA program to implement “Social Impact
Partnership Demonstration Projects and feasibility studies.”23 In February 2019, the U.S. Department of Treasury
issued a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) that
invited applications from state and local governments forawards under SIPPRA. Importantly, the NOFA identified
21 different outcomes that a social impact partnershipproject could apply the funding to, including reducing
recidivism among juvenile offenders, individuals released
from prison, or other high-risk populations. It remains
to be seen whether any of the proposed partnerships willaddress higher education projects for these populations.

An Outcomes Evaluation of the Programs
Implemented Under the Pell Initiative Is
NeededThe Pell initiative has played a key role in helping to expand
access to college programs for those who are incarcerated instate and federal prisons, but it also could inform policymakers about which program models might be most effective for this population. RAND’s 2013 and updated 2018
meta-analyses (Davis et al., 2013; Bozick et al., 2018) on theeffectiveness of correctional education have been instrumental in helping the field of correctional education tomove forward from a point at which policymakers believedthat “nothing works” to where it is now, with clear evidence
that correctional education does indeed work in helping to
reduce recidivism and to increase post-release employment.
At the highest level, we know correctional education
works, but it is now time to look inside the “black box” ofin-prison college programs (and other education programs)
to understand more about the drivers that make these programs work. In short, we still need to answer the following
questions to help policymakers identify promising orevidence-based college programs for incarcerated
individuals:• Who benefits most from in-prison college
programs?
• What factors moderate or mediate the effects ofin-prison college programs?
• What is the right balance between in-person instruction and self-study or computer-based learning?
• What principles from adult higher education andlearning might be applicable to college programs forincarcerated individuals?
For example, colleges participating in the Pell initiative
provide a variety of instruction models: in-person only, acombination of in-person and computer instruction, andcomputer-only. However, we lack data on how effective
these different program models are and which are mosteffective for this population. In its recent assessment of thePell Grant Pilot for Incarcerated Students, GAO noted that
ED has not established how it would evaluate the pilot ormeasure performance and called for such an evaluation,
beyond just collecting data from schools participating in
the initiative (GAO, 2019). Critical to this is an outcomes
evaluation that would enable us to examine the effectiveness of different program models being implemented andwould greatly add to our understanding of how to provide
effective education, as well as which program models mostbenefit this population.
In addition, policymakers might want to consider such
issues as the right balance between programs that lead tocollege degrees and those that lead to industry-recognizedcredentials, and how to provide a continuum of education
opportunities for individuals who are incarcerated.

• What amount of intervention (or dosage) is associated with effective college programs, and how doesthat amount vary for different types of students?
11Conclusions
There is a growing consensus about the need to address themultifaceted problem of mass incarceration in this nation.
Policymakers on both sides of the aisle are finding common
ground in both acknowledging the problem and in trying
to address it through the various levers available to them at
the front end of the criminal justice system (e.g., sentencing
reform) and at the back end (e.g., providing more services to
ex-offenders returning to communities).
With solid evidence showing that correctional education programs are effective—and cost-effective—at
improving employment outcomes for participants and at
helping to keep formerly incarcerated individuals fromreturning to prison, education is another lever that policymakers can use to help reduce recidivism rates.
Some argue that access to college education is challenging for their own families and question why theirfamily members are not eligible for Pell Grants when incarcerated individuals are. That position tends to ignore thefact that Pell Grants are an entitlement program and thatmaking such grants available to individuals in prison will
not take funding away from eligible applicants in the general population. Furthermore, PSE is important in helping
ex-offenders integrate back into the mainstream labor force
and in ensuring that returning citizens are prepared for thechallenges of the 21st-century workplace.
In summary, although we know that correctional education, including PSE programs, is effective, understanding
more about which program models are most effective, whatfeatures of such programs work best, and how to ensure
the long-term funding support needed for in-prison college
programs can help policymakers and state providers makewise choices given limited budgets.
12

Notes
In the United States, community colleges provide the majority of postsecondary education (PSE) programs in prison (68 percent), followed bypublic four-year institutions (16 percent) and private, nonprofit, fouryear institutions (10 percent) (Erisman and Contardo, 2005).
1

In New York state alone, the number of college programs offered toincarcerated individuals fell from 70 in the early 1990s to just four programs in 2004 (New York State Bar Association, 2016).
2

3
Prior to the 1994 Crime Bill that President Bill Clinton signed into law,
those who had been incarcerated in prison were eligible to receive Pell
Grants to help cover the costs of participating in college programs. Pell
Grants were a key source of funding for PSE for incarcerated individuals. However, in 1994, Congress amended the HEA to eliminate Pell
Grant eligibility for students incarcerated in federal and state prisons(Crayton and Neusteter, 2008).
4
Individuals with a death sentence or a life without parole sentence were
not eligible to participate in the Second Chance Pell Experimental Sites
Initiative.

By stackable, we mean credentials should be in a sequence that a student can accumulate over time and that those credentials should enable
that student to move along a career pathway or up a career ladder.

5

In general, in the past 20 years, there has been a downward trend in participation in academic and vocational education but not in work assignments (Turner, 2018). With respect to participation in college programs,
14 percent of state prisoners participated in 1991; only 7.2 percent of state
prisoners reported participating in these programs in 2004 (Harlow,2003). A number of factors influence the availability and capacity of these
programs. In addition to the drop in the number of states that offeredcollege programs following the 1994 Pell inmate exclusion, the recessionof 2008 also had an impact on prisons’ programming capacity. In a 2013
survey by RAND of state correctional education directors, 33 states
reported offering adult PSE in their state prisons. The effect of the 2008
recession, however, was a reported contraction in the capacity of academic
education programs, with an overall decrease of 4 percent, on average, inthe number of adult students who participated in these programs between
fiscal years 2009 and 2012 (Davis et al., 2013). During this same period,
20 states reduced the number of course offerings for academic programs,
and 17 states reduced or eliminated contracts with community or technical colleges (Davis et al., 2013).

6

7
The PIAAC reports five proficiency levels for literacy and numeracy(below Level 1, Level 1, Level 2, Level 3, and Level 4/5). Rampey et al.,2016, looked at the percentage of incarcerated adults below Level 2 on the
PIAAC literacy and numeracy scales in terms of whether they currently
had a prison job. Among those who had a prison job, 27 percent werereading below Level 2 on the literacy scale, compared with 32 percentof those who did not have a prison job. In terms of numeracy skills,
50 percent of those who had a prison job were below Level 2 on the PIAAC
numeracy scale, compared with 57 percent of those who did not.

That is, the RAND 2013 study did not look at the indirect costs thatrecidivism imposes, such as the financial and emotional toll on crime
victims and the costs to the criminal justice system as a whole, including
policing and court costs. If we had included such indirect costs, thesecost savings would likely be higher.

89Another consideration is whether these programs contribute to safety
within prisons. A review of the literature about the impact of educational programming on prison misconduct by Duwe, 2017, foundmixed results. Several studies found that time spent in educational or
vocational programming reduced nonviolent misconduct; a separate
meta-analysis by French and Gendreau (2006) found that educationaland vocational programming was not associated with a decrease indiscipline infractions.
10
The other states selected were Michigan and New Jersey. The five-year
demonstration project led by the Vera Institute of Justice was funded by
the Ford Foundation, the Sunshine Lady Foundation, the Open Society
Foundations, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and the W. K.
Kellogg Foundation.
11
To increase educational persistence and completion rates among participants, the pilot states also provided extensive case planning in prison
and remedial educational programming, college-readiness classes, andcollege counseling in the community.

North Carolina received $1 million in incentive funding to implement
Pathways and was required to provide an overall match of at least 25 percent. With 15 percent in the form of a cash match (from public or private
sources) and 10 percent in-kind to be distributed over the four years ofthe demonstration project. In-kind resources included assistance fromstate-level staff at NCDPS and NCCCS and from staff in the participatingcorrectional facilities and release communities (e.g., community college
staff and local reentry councils’ staff) (Davis and Tolbert, 2019).
12College courses were taught in person by local community college
professors in six correctional facilities. Additional in-prison supports
13

included remedial instruction in English and math, tutoring, study hallor study groups, dedicated case managers, and computer training andinternet access. Prerelease supports included development of a transition
plan, referral to services, and assistance with applying for financial aid
and completing college applications.
Participants in the Pathways pilot returned to one of three releasecommunities—Charlotte, Asheville, or Greenville—which were selected
because of the presence of local community colleges and reentry infrastructure.
14

The lessons learned about the Pathways in-prison college program,
such as the importance of staff training, are also relevant to correctional
programming in general. See, for example, Ellickson et al., 1983.
15

16
Incarcerated individuals are not eligible to receive other types of federal student aid under the pilot (ED, 2015).

Grants to States for Workplace and Community Transition Training
for Incarcerated Individuals, more commonly known as Incarcerated
Youth Offender Grant, provided grants to state correctional education
agencies to assist and encourage incarcerated youth in acquiring functional literacy, life, and job skills by pursuing PSE certificates, associateof arts degrees, and bachelor’s degrees. The target population included
individuals who (1) were incarcerated in a state prison, (2) were eligible
to be released or paroled within seven years, (3) were 35 years old or
younger, (4) were not convicted of some specific crimes, and (5) had
obtained a high school diploma or its equivalent (Tolbert and Pearson,2011). The grant program ended in 2010.

17

18
A survey by Castro et al. (2018) found that 47 states had at least one PSE
institution providing credit-bearing coursework to incarcerated people.
Of the 202 degree-granting, postsecondary Title IV institutions in the
United States that offered credit-bearing PSE in at least one prison, 67
were Pell recipients and 135 were non–Second Chance Pell institutions.

For example, in the first two years of the Pell initiative, 40 institutions
were awarded approximately $35.6 million in Pell Grants for about
8,800 incarcerated students. Institutions offered more than 1,000 different courses, with an average of 19 per site. To date, 954 credentials havebeen awarded, including credentials to 578 individuals while they wereincarcerated and 34 to those who completed their program after returning
to their community (ED, 2019).

19

For example, under Indiana law (Indiana Code, Title 35, Article 50,
Chapter 6), an individual can earn educational credits to reduce thelength of his or her imprisonment by participating in educational,

20

13

vocational, rehabilitative, and other programs. This includes earning an
associate’s degree or bachelor’s degree during incarceration.
21
PFS is a financing mechanism that shifts financial risk from a
traditional funder—usually the government—to a new investor, whoprovides upfront capital to scale an evidence-based program to improveoutcomes for a vulnerable population. If an independent evaluationshows that the program achieved agreed-upon outcomes, then theinvestment is repaid by the traditional funder. If not, the investor takes
the loss (Urban Institute, 2017).

According to the Urban Institute (undated), the terms PFS and social
impact bonds are often used interchangeably to describe innovative
financing of social or environmental interventions. However, PFS is abroader term that encompasses other methods of paying for outcomes,
such as performance-based contracting and results-based financing.

22

23
The U.S. Department of the Treasury is generally the lead federal agency
to administer the program (U.S. Department of Treasury, undated).

References
Bozick, Robert, Jennifer Steele, Lois M. Davis, and Susan Turner, “Does
Providing Inmates with Education Improve Post-Release Outcomes?
A Meta-Analysis of Correctional Education Programs in the UnitedStates,” Journal of Experimental Criminology, Vol. 14, No. 3, May 2018,
pp. 389–428. As of August 5, 2018:https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11292-018-9334-6
Carnevel, Anthony P., Nicole Smith, and Jeff Strohl, Recovery: Job
Growth and Education Requirements Through 2020, Washington, D.C.:
Georgetown Center on Education and the Workforce, June 2013.
Castro, Erin L., Rebecca K. Hunter, Tara Hardison, and Vanessa
Johnson-Ojeda, “The Landscape of Postsecondary Education in Prison
and the Influence of Second Chance Pell: An Analysis of Transferability,
Credit-Bearing Status, and Accreditation,” Prison Journal, Vol. 98, No. 4,
2018, pp. 405–426.
Crayton, Anna, and Suzanne Rebecca Neusteter, The Current State ofCorrectional Education, paper commissioned in preparation for theReentry Roundtable on Education, John Jay College of Criminal Justice,
New York, March 31–April 1, 2008.

Davis, Lois M., Robert Bozick, Jennifer L. Steele, Jessica Saunders, Jeremy
N. V. Miles, Evaluating the Effectiveness of Correctional Education: A
Meta-Analysis of Programs that Provide Education to Incarcerated Adults,
Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND Corporation,
RR-266-BJA, 2013. As of July 23, 2019:https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR266.html
Davis, Lois M., Jennifer L. Steele, Robert Bozick, Malcolm V. Williams,
Susan Turner, Jeremy N. V. Miles, Jessica Saunders, and Paul S.
Steinberg, How Effective is Correctional Education, and Where Do We
Go From Here? Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND Corporation, RR-564-BJA,
2014. As of July 25, 2019:https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR564.html
Davis, Lois M., and Michelle C. Tolbert, Evaluation of North Carolina’s
Pathways from Prison to Postsecondary Education Program, Santa Monica,
Calif.: RAND Corporation, RR-2957-LGF, April 2019. As of July 25, 2019:https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2957.html
Duwe, Grant, The Use and Impact of Correctional Programming for
Inmates on Pre- and Post-Release Outcomes, Washington, D.C.: National
Institute of Justice, June 2017.
ED—See U.S. Department of Education.
Ellickson, Phyllis L., Joan R. Petersilia, Michael N. Caggiano, and Sandra
Segal Polin, Implementing New Ideas in Criminal Justice, Santa Monica,
Calif.: RAND Corporation, R-2929-NIJ, April 1983. As of July 25, 2019:https://www.rand.org/pubs/reports/R2929.html
Erisman, Wendy, and Jeanne Bayer Contardo, Learning to Reduce
Recidivism: A 50-State Analysis of Postsecondary Correctional Education
Policy, Washington, D.C.: Institute for Higher Education Policy,
November 2005.
French, Sheila, and Paul Gendreau, “Reducing Prison Misconducts: What
Works!” Criminal Justice and Behavior, Vol. 33, No. 2, 2006, pp. 185–218.
GAO—See U.S. Government Accountability Office.
Harlow, Caroline Wolf, Education and Correctional Populations,
Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics, NCJ 195670, April 13, 2003.
Indiana Code, Title 35, Criminal Law and Procedure, Article 50,
Sentences, Chapter 56, Release from Imprisonment and Credit Time,2017. As of July 25, 2019:https://law.justia.com/codes/indiana/2017/title-35/article-50/chapter-6/
section-35-50-6-3.3/
Mukamal, Debbie, Rebecca Silbert, and Rebecca M. Taylor, Degrees ofFreedom: Expanding College Opportunities for Currently and Formerly
Incarcerated Californians, Palo Alto, Calif.: Stanford Criminal JusticeCenter, February 2015.

14

New York State Bar Association, Special Committee on Re-Entry,
recommendations, Albany, N.Y., January 2016.
Nonprofit Finance Fund, “New York State Increasing Employment andImproving Public Safety,” July 2, 2018. As of June 15, 2019:http://www.payforsuccess.org/project/new-york-state-increasingemployment-and-improving-public-safety
Rampey, Bobby D., Shelley Keiper, Leyla Mohadjer, Tom Krenzke,
Jianzhu Li, Nina Thornton, and Jacquie Hogan, Highlights from the U.S.
PIAAC Survey of Incarcerated Adults: Their Skills, Work Experience,
Education, and Training: Program for the International Assessmentof Adult Competencies: 2014, Washington, D.C.: National Center for
Education Statistics, NCES 2016-040, 2016. As of June 15, 2019:http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch
Schwartz, Natalie, “Ed Dept Expands Second Chance Pell Grant Programfor People in Prison,” EducationDive, May 21, 2019. As of June 18, 2019:https://www.educationdive.com/news/ed-dept-expands-second-chancepell-grant-program-for-people-in-prison/555220/
Tolbert, Michelle, and Juliana Pearson, Correctional Education Data:
Resources to Support the Collection, Reporting, and Analysis of Federal
Data, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Office ofCareer, Technical, and Adult Education, 2011.
Torpey, Elka, “Employment Outlook for Bachelor’s-Level Occupations,”
webpage, Bureau of Labor Statistics, April 2018. As of June 18, 2019:https://www.bls.gov/careeroutlook/2018/article/bachelors-degreeoutlook.htm

U.S. Department of Education, “U.S. Department of Education Issues
First-Ever Pay for Success Awards to Expand Opportunity in Career andTechnical Education, Dual Language Programs,” October 11, 2016. As ofJune 15, 2019:https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/us-department-educationissues-first-ever-pay-success-awards-expand-opportunity-career-andtechnical-education-dual-language-programs
U.S. Department of Education, “Secretary DeVos Builds on ‘Rethink
Higher Education’ Agenda, Expands Opportunities for Students ThroughInnovative Experimental Sites,” May 20, 2019. As of June 15, 2019:https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/secretary-devos-builds-rethinkhigher-education-agenda-expands-opportunities-students-throughinnovative-experimental-sites
U.S. Department of Treasury, Office of Economic Policy, “Social Impact
Partnerships to Pay for Results Act Demonstration Projects,” notice offunding availability, February 2019.
U.S. Government Accountability Office, Federal Student Aid, Actions
Needed to Evaluate Pell Grant Pilot for Incarcerated Students,
GAO-19-130, Washington D.C., March 2019.
U.S. House of Representatives, H.R. 6543, Aim Higher Act (2017-2018),
July 26, 2018. As of June 13, 2019:https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/6543
U.S. House of Representatives, H.R. 2168, Restoring Education andLearning (REAL) Act of 2019, April 9, 2019a. As of June 13, 2019:https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr2168

Turner, Susan F., “Multiple Faces of Reentry, “ in John Wooldridge andPaula Smith, eds., Oxford Handbook on Prisons and Punishment, New
York: Oxford University Press, 2018.

U.S. House of Representatives, H.R. 2635, Promoting Reentry Through
Education in Prisons (PREP) Act, May 9, 2019b. As of June 13, 2019:https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hr2635/text

Urban Institute, “How Do Pay for Success and Social Impact Bonds
Differ?” Pay for Success, website, undated. As of June 15, 2019:https://pfs.urban.org/ask-expert/content/how-do-pay-success-andsocial-impact-bonds-differ

U.S. Senate, S. 1074, Restoring Education and Learning (REAL) Act of
2019, April 9, 2019a. As of June 13, 2018:https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/1074

Urban Institute, “Getting Started with Pay for Success: Frequently
Asked Questions,” webpage, June 20, 2017. As of June 15, 2019:https://pfs.urban.org/faq
U.S. Department of Education, “U.S. Department of Education
Launches Second Chance Pell Pilot Program for Incarcerated
Individuals,” July 31, 2015. As of June 15, 2019:https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/us-department-educationlaunches-second-chance-pell-pilot-program-incarcerated-individuals

U.S. Senate, S. 1337, Promoting Reentry through Education in Prisons(PREP) Act of 2019, May 7, 2019b. As of June 13, 2018:https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/1337
Vera Institute of Justice, “Unlocking Potential: Pathways From Prison
To Postsecondary Education, Request for Proposals,” 2012, not available
to the general public.
White House, Proposals to Reform The Higher Education Act,
Washington, D.C., 2019. As of June 18, 2019:https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/HEAPrinciples.pdf

15About This Perspective
Each year, more than 700,000 incarcerated individuals leave federal
and state prisons and return to local communities where they will haveto compete with individuals in those communities for jobs. In today’s
economy, having a college education is necessary to compete for manyjobs, and the stakes for ex-offenders are higher than they are for others:
Being able to land a job can mean the difference between successfullytransitioning back into a community and returning to prison. There has
been a resurgence and of interest in recent years in expanding higher
education in prison at the federal and state levels, particularly expansions that offer a path to degrees or industry-recognized credentials.
The 2015 U.S. Department of Education three-year Second ChancePell Experimental Sites Initiative temporarily lifted the federal ban on Pell
Grants to incarcerated individuals who otherwise met Title IV eligibility
requirements and recently announced that it will expand the Second
Chance Pell program to add new colleges to the experimental sites.
Focusing on the Second Chance Pell Experimental Sites Initiative
and the experience of the Pathways from Prison to Postsecondary
Education initiative in North Carolina—this Perspective summarizes
what is known about the educational attainment and deficits of thoseincarcerated in state and federal prisons and about the effectiveness ofeducational programs in helping to reduce recidivism. It also assesses
key issues remaining to be addressed. It is intended to be of interest to
state and federal policymakers interested in expanding these programsand builds on other RAND Corporation research in this area.
RAND Social and Economic Well-Being is a division of the RAND
Corporation that seeks to actively improve the health and social andeconomic well-being of populations and communities throughout theworld. This research was conducted in the Justice Policy Program

within RAND Social and Economic Well-Being. The program focuseson such topics as access to justice, policing, corrections, drug policy,
and court system reform, as well as other policy concerns pertaining to
public safety and criminal and civil justice. For more information, email
justicepolicy@rand.org.
RAND Ventures is a vehicle for investing in policy solutions.
Philanthropic contributions support our ability to take the long view,
tackle tough and often-controversial topics, and share our findings
in innovative and compelling ways. RAND’s research findings andrecommendations are based on data and evidence, and therefore do
not necessarily reflect the policy preferences or interests of its clients,
donors, or supporters.
Funding for this venture was provided by gifts from RAND supporters
through the Alumni Impact Fund, which was created to help RAND
researchers expand the impact of their research and analysis.

About the Author
Lois M. Davis is a senior policy researcher at the RAND Corporation
with expertise in correctional education, prisoner reentry, and public safety. She led the national evaluation funded under the Second
Chance Act to assess the effectiveness of correctional education
programs for incarcerated adults and juveniles and an evaluation of
the three-state Pathways from Prison to Post-Secondary Education
demonstration project that provided access to college programs toincarcerated adults. Davis currently is leading the process and outcomes evaluation of the Minnesota Department of Corrections’ Career
Navigators Program. She has a doctorate in public health from the
University of California, Los Angeles.

Limited Print and Electronic Distribution Rights
This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual
property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited.
Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete.
Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of our research documents forcommercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.html.
The RAND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help makecommunities throughout the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous. RAND is nonprofit,
nonpartisan, and committed to the public interest.
RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.
registered trademark.

C O R P O R AT I O N

www.rand.org

is a

For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/PE342.
© Copyright 2019 RAND Corporation

PE-342-RC