Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

1

 DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

 OFFICE OF POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION

 PRISON EDUCATION PROGRAMS SUBCOMMITTEE

 SESSION 1, DAY 2, MORNING

October 19, 2021

On the 19th day of October, 2021, the

following meeting was held virtually, from 10:00 a.m.

to 12:00 p.m., before Jamie Young, Shorthand Reporter

in the state of New Jersey.
2

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

P R O C E E D I N G S

 MR. WASHINGTON: Hello, everyone, and 

welcome to day two of the Prison Education Program 

Subcommittee. My name is Aaron Washington and I will be 

leading the subcommittee through the amendatory language 

today in our discussions. I would like to also introduce 

some of the Department staff. I'll hold Sophia to the 

end, so she can introduce herself but we're also joined 

by Ronald Sann from our Office of General Counsel. And we 

will have David Musser as a technical adviser as well 

today. Could we go through the subcommittee members and 

just say your name and wave? We can start with Belinda.

 MS. WHEELER: Good morning, everyone. 

Belinda Wheeler, consumer advocacy groups.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Kim.

 MS. CARY: Good morning, Kim Cary, and 

I'm the college director for financial aid at Ozarks 

Technical Community College and I'm representing 

financial aid administrators.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Is Stan with us? Stan 

informed sorry, Stan informed us that he has a prior 

commitment until 11:30. So he will likely be joining us 

at 11:30 a.m. Terrell?

 MR. BLOUNT: Good morning, everyone.

Terrell Blount here, director of formerly incarcerated 
3

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

college graduates network, and I am representing 

organizations that represent incarcerated students.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you, Dr. 

McTier.

 DR. MCTIER: Good morning, Dr. 

Terrence McTier, director of the Prison Education Project 

at Washington University in St. Louis, representing 

directors of prison education programs.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Marisa.

 MS. BRITTON-BOSTWICK: Good morning 

Marisa Britton-Bostwick, Montana Department of 

Corrections. I'm the education director, and I'm 

representing corrections education.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Dr. Paccione? Amy, 

has Dr. Paccione joined us this morning?

 MS. WILSON: Not yet. I'm keeping my 

eye out for her.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Okay, I'd like to for 

the Department of Education staff member, Sophia to join 

us to introduce herself this morning.

 MS. MCARDLE: Hi, good morning. I'm 

Sophia McArdle. I'm a policy analyst with the policy 

development group. I'll be helping to facilitate today 

and I'm so happy to be here.

 MR. WASHINGTON: And we will, when Dr. 
4

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

Paccione joins us we'll, we can she can we'll allow her 

some time to introduce herself and talk a little bit 

about constituency. Before we dive into the agenda today, 

which we're going to be discussing the definition of best 

interests that the Bureau of Prisons and State Department 

of Corrections will use to determine if the programs can 

operate at their facilities that they oversee, I wanted 

to allow Belinda and Dr. McTier to discuss some of their 

language proposals, and concerns this morning. So I'll 

turn it over to Belinda first.

 MS. WHEELER: Alright, thank you so 

much team. 

 MR. WASHINGTON: I'm sorry. I'm sorry. 

I apologize. I have one more thing. Vanessa, would you 

mind projecting the amendatory language? Belinda, please.

 MS. WHEELER: Okay, great. No worries. 

Thank you all so much for allowing me to discuss a couple

of things. So the first one we had actually discussed a 

little bit yesterday, and I emailed it to the group, the 

specific language and this relates to Section 34 CFR 

600.21, which appears on page three of the mandatory 

language document. And it was under the reporting 

requirements. And there's the new language that the 

Department has proposed. And it was it was currently 

written as its addition of an eligible prison education 
5

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

program at an additional location. And I talked yesterday 

about the reasons for my supporting some slight 

adjustments, and I just wanted to put on the record that 

I was hoping that the subcommittee would consider slight 

tweaks which are its establishment of an eligible prison 

education program at an additional location as defined in 

34 CFR 600.2.

 MR. WASHINGTON: So, so just having a 

really quick Vanessa, would you mind putting a comment 

bubble next to the number 14 and that way we can capture 

that language change, and Belinda, if you could repeat it 

slowly so that Vanessa can capture everything.

 MS. WHEELER: Yes, sir. So we're 

essentially the second word addition, changing from 

addition to establishment. And then- 

 MR. WASHINGTON: Sorry. So, so 

Vanessa, say before, establishment say it's in the yep 

its establishment. Go ahead Belinda please.

 MS. WHEELER: Yeah, no worries. And 

then at the very end of the session section, excuse me 

sec sentence, where it says additional location, I'd like 

to propose that we add as defined in 34 CFR 600.2.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you. And 

Vanessa, could you- add the date Vanessa? And, like 

10/19? And, Belinda, I think that's so we can capture who 
6

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

made that recommendation. Thank you very much, Vanessa. 

And I know you wanted to discuss another one of your 

concerns as well.

 MS. WHEELER: Yes, sir. So thank you. 

So yesterday, we talked a little bit about two different 

sections that almost appear to someone who's not a 

lawyer, appear to potentially negate each other. And I 

was requesting clarity. And again, I've sent this as an 

email to everyone in the group, but I'm putting it on the 

record here for everyone. So the initial section is, I 

believe it's on page two, oh, no, page one, it's 34 CFR 

600.2. And it talks about this definition of confined or 

incarcerated individual. And in the last sentence of that 

potential revised definition, there's the sentence an 

individual is not considered incarcerated if that 

individual is in a halfway house or home detention or is 

sentenced to serve only weekends. That was a sentence 

that kind of caused a little bit of just general concern, 

I think in the subcommittee as, you know, these people 

are technically confined, it's just that they're perhaps 

not confined full time. So that was a bit of an issue 

just in general. But when we get to Section 34, CFR 

668.32, which is further down in the document, there is 

so for the first one it was talking about, those 

individuals that perhaps were in a halfway house wouldn't 
7

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

be eligible, perhaps for a Pell, because it's not 

considered, you know, full time incarceration, things of 

that nature. But once we get down to 34, CFR 668.32, this 

seems to be some language that perhaps becomes more 

inclusive, again, of individuals. And so in the, in the 

new language, so it's 2, Roman. So number two, and then 

Roman numerals number two, we've got A is not 

incarcerated. And, again, as a as not as a lawyer, but 

hoping that the Department could perhaps kind of quantify 

if, if we're excluding people up in that earlier 

language, because perhaps they're serving their sentence 

at a halfway house, for example. But then we're perhaps 

including them later on for Pell because they are 

therefore not defined as incarcerated. It almost seemed 

like that language was confusing each other, like, in one 

hand you're excluded on this hinge are included and I 

could see that potentially, as we roll out Pell For All, 

that this could be kind of a little bit confusing. So I 

was I brought this to the table for ED and hopefully one 

of your legal team or something we can kind of talk this 

through a little bit because as a lay person, it seems 

like this is a potential, you know, you're taking away on 

this hand, but then you're giving it back and depending 

on how people read it, that could really have serious 

implications for people who are seeking Pell for 
8

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

educational purposes. Does that help explain that Aaron?

 MR. WASHINGTON: Yes, that does and I 

will, because the question that was directed to our legal 

counsel, I'll just provide just a little bit of feedback 

and then I will turn it over to Ronald Sann. So the 

definition of confined or incarcerated student--that's 

the statutory definition and it specifically says, we 

don't consider individuals in a halfway house or home 

detention or sentence to serve on the weekends to be 

incarcerated. So the statute is telling us that these 

individuals are eligible for Pell loans and they're 

eligible to enroll in any eligible program. Because 

they're not considered confined or incarcerated, if they 

were to be considered confined or incarcerated, then they 

the individual students would have to enroll in a prison 

education program. And so we, I did recognize a change 

that needed to be made to 668.32 and for romanette 2A, we 

do need to say there's not a confined or incarcerated 

individual, but I think we are covered because we 

wouldn't want to include those that were in a halfway 

house or home detention center, or serving only on 

weekends in the definition of a confined student, because 

then they would have to enroll in a prison education 

program. And I do understand, based on our conversations 

yesterday, that while the Higher Education Act defines a 
9

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

halfway house or home detention, or those serving on 

weekends as not confined, that other state statutes or 

other local statutes may consider these individuals 

confined or, you know, amongst the experts on the 

subcommittee and prison education. You may read that as 

these individuals are confined, but for Title IV federal 

survey purposes solely, specifically for the awarding of 

Title IV aid, we would not consider these these 

individuals confined and therefore they would be eligible 

for Pell loans to enroll in any eligible program. So 

quickly, I just want to make I see your (inaudible), I 

wanted to ask Vanessa, could she put in a comment bubble, 

yes right on that line, the big A, and just say update to 

is not a confined or incarcerated individual. And you can 

put my name there as well.

 MS. MCARDLE: Belinda, or are we going 

to Ron first? Do you still want Ron to- 

 MR. WASHINGTON: Did Ron raise- I 

don't know if he raised his hand, Sophia. 

 MS. MCARDLE: So I thought you were 

going to toss it to him. 

 MR. WASHINGTON: Oh if he had anything 

to add? Yeah. If he doesn't, then we'll go to Belinda.

 MS. MCARDLE: Oh, he seems to have his 

hand up. So let's go to Ron. Ron. Is he on? Are you on 
10

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

mute, Ron? Hello.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Let's go to let's go 

to Belinda, Sophia, then Ron can- 

 MS. WHEELER: Well, I was just simply 

going to say thank you that I appreciate that amendment 

or the addition to, excuse me, 668.32, I think that makes 

sure that things aren't as confusing. And you do make a 

good point that that those people would be eligible just 

for like the general Pell as opposed to, you know, Pell 

that has to be linked to a prison education program. So I 

think that actually provides more flexibility than I had 

first envisioned. So thank you for that.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you, Belinda.

 MS. MCARDLE: Ron, yeah. Ron, are you 

are you on mute perhaps? Your hand is up.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Amy, is there a way 

to administratively unmute Ron?

 MS. WILSON: No, he is unmuted. It 

might be technical. Maybe Ron needs to log out and then 

log back in.

 MS. MCARDLE: Okay. Terrell?

 MR. BLOUNT: This is Terrell. I wanted 

to circle back around to the point I made yesterday about 

people who are civilly committed so as it stands, that 

doesn't necessarily mean that a person is incarcerated 
11

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

because they've completed their sentence. They're no 

longer serving a criminal sentence, but they are still 

being detained at some type of facility that is not a 

halfway house, work release, or anything, you know, of 

the sort. So where do they fall in the conversation? I 

think I'm posing to the subcommittee members. Is that 

something that we want to indicate or highlight in that 

previous piece, not in 668.32, but when describing the 

confinement piece earlier. 

 MS. MCARDLE: Aaron?

 MR. WASHINGTON: So Terrell are you 

proposing a language change to add to 668.2 that 

individual is not considered incarcerated if that 

individual is in a halfway house, home detention center, 

detention center only on the weekends, or is serving an 

involuntary civil commitment? 

 MR. BLOUNT: That is correct. 

 MR. WASHINGTON: Okay. Vanessa, would 

you mind? We're having Vanessa, jump all over the 

document. Thank you so much, Vanessa. So let's see. Next. 

Can you put a comment bubble in? And yep anywhere on that 

definition and say, add involuntary civil commitment to 

the definition, let's say we can add involuntary civil 

commitment to those that are not considered to be 

incarcerated.
12

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

 MS. MCARDLE: Aaron, Ron I think is 

back on. Would you like to try him or not?

 MR. WASHINGTON: Let's go to Dr. 

McTier because he's been waiting. And then go to Ron 

after.

 MS. MCARDLE: Okay. Dr. McTier.

 DR. MCTIER: Just on that point, I 

will also add that there's outpatient treatment 

facilities that are confined. So maybe adding those 

outpatient treatment facilities.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Just to clarify it, 

would you like to add that to those that are confined or 

those are not confined?

 DR. MCTIER: That are confined, the 

outpatient facilities won't actually have the word 

confined or prison, but by nature, they are actually 

confined. So meaning that they can't leave that facility.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Okay, so that those 

individuals, prior to the proposal, would be required to 

enroll in a prison education program. They couldn't- 

 DR. MCTIER: They wouldn't be able to 

go to a traditional college campus.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Vanessa, can you add? 

In that same kind, but what you can add? I'm sorry, Dr. 

McTier, can you repeat that?
13

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

 DR. MCTIER: What was the last? What 

did you want me to repeat? 

 MR. WASHINGTON: It was outpatient?- 

 DR. MCTIER: Outpatient treatment 

facilities.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Okay. Outpatient 

treatment facility. 

 MS. MCARDLE: Okay. Should we go to 

Ron, so we can catch up with what Ron was going to say?

 MR. WASHINGTON: Yes.

 MS. MCARDLE: Ron? Here we go. Ron, 

you are unmuted. So we can't but we cannot hear you.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Sophia, while we 

wait- 

 MS. MCARDLE: Wait for- while we wait 

for Ron. Let's go to Dave Musser. Sure, thanks. I just 

had a quick question for regarding the outpatient 

treatment facilities that was brought up a second ago, 

when an individual is confined in outpatient treatment 

facilities following incarceration, is the individual 

typically serving part of their sentence? Or is that 

something that's in addition to serving the sentence?

 DR. MCTIER: Something that's in 

addition to serving their sentence. I specifically think 

about individuals with sexual related offenses who are 
14

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

actually required to attend an outpatient treatment 

facility that is actually confined and I can think of 

several institutions such as that throughout the country.

 MS. MCARDLE: Okay, that's helpful. I 

the only reason I bring it up is we may need to talk 

offline with our general counsel, because if confinement 

is occurring outside the scope of the sentence, I don't 

know whether we would be able to consider the individual 

as being confined or incarcerated given the statutory 

language. So I think we just need to take that one back.

 DR. MCTIER: Yeah, it will be actually 

in conjunction with their sentence. So part of this is 

continuing the treatment outside.

 MR. MUSSER: Okay.

 MS. MCARDLE: Next we have Kim, and 

then Marisa.

 MS. CARY: Thank you, Dr. McTier, 

following up on those two statements. Would that change 

the comment bubble to be under confined and not the way 

that Vanessa had it written there? So if they're 

considered to be incarcerated, correct, or confined.

 DR. MCTIER: See, that's the thing. 

They're not necessarily considered incarcerated or 

confined. But that's what I was saying that the facility 

in and of itself is. They don't use the word confined or 
15

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

incarcerated. But the individuals can't leave that 

facility whatsoever. But they technically will actually 

fall under confined but if we look at the law, as is, you 

know, they can easily be excluded from either confined or 

incarcerated, because it's not in the definition or the 

name of that particular facility. Does that make sense?

 MS. CARY: It does and we may need to 

just make that notation that it will be taken back to the 

Department to make the determination of which one that 

falls in. Thank you.

 MS. MCARDLE: Marisa.

 MS. BRITTON-BOSTWICK: I think it's 

really important what Dr. McTier is saying because a lot 

of times people finish their programming or treatment 

under the supervision of the Department of Corrections, 

but they're not in a correctional facility. And they can 

be there for long periods of time, and should have access 

to the Pell funds. I mean, when they're under that 

corrections umbrella. And so I think it's a really 

important point. My other issue, and this might just be a 

wording. What about pre-release centers? Are those part 

of the work release? Or is this just kind of a wording 

issue? 

 MS. MCARDLE: Aaron?

 MR. WASHINGTON: I think we have the
16

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

statute says or similar, correction. Some of the 

correctional institution, I don't, I don't want to, I 

think we can spend as much time as the subcommittee feels 

needs to be spent on this specific definition. However, 

we do have or similar Correctional Institution, and I 

think we've gotten some ideas from the subcommittee, I 

will work with Vanessa to clean that comment bubble up a 

little bit, I do understand the intent of the comment 

bubble. So we will see it changed after the break. But I 

think what we stated yesterday, as well, do we want it 

may not be the best idea to have an exhaustive list of 

different institutions, that would be or facilities that 

will be considered under this definition. And to allow, 

because things will probably come up in the future, 

right? That we would maybe need to consider, we have the 

preamble, where we explain the regulation, we have 

subregulatory guidance, like Dear Colleague letters and 

electronic announcements that we provide to the 

community. And so if there are facilities that we have 

not, that we didn't think to cover during the rulemaking, 

we can always provide guidance to the community at a 

later point. So I don't want us to, you know, get caught 

up too much on having the most comprehensive, exhaustive 

list of what an incarcerated individual is and what 

institutions will fall under that, because we will like 
17

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

as David stated, We will have to take these common 

bubbles, right? So we're not actually making the language 

change right now. We're just, we're just putting it 

there, as a note to the Department to consider that 

language change. And we'll talk to our counsel after the 

sessions to see where it should fall, whether it is or 

it isn't. And so I think I think we have some ideas, the 

outpatient center outpatient treatment center for those 

that are incarcerated, and involuntary civil commitment 

for those that are not incarcerated. And I think it's, I 

think we have enough to take it back to our counsel at 

the Department. So that's all I say. Thank you.

 MS. MCARDLE: Kim.

 MS. CARY: To Aaron's point, it might 

just be easier to put in the second half or more 

appropriate, the same similar language or other similar 

institutions. And so that we don't have to lock ourselves 

in-- so the language in the first part versus the second 

part, I think you could mirror that. 

 MS. MCARDLE: Aaron, did you want to 

respond to that? 

 MR. WASHINGTON: No, thank you. 

 MS. MCARDLE: We have Marisa next.

 MS. BRITTON-BOSTWICK: I think it's 

fine to leave it open. But I think it's really important 
18

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

that people who work in corrections or offenders usually 

fall through the cracks when it comes to education. And I 

think that it's really important that it's not left too 

broad, because there are a lot of places that fall under 

that corrections umbrella. And I just would hate to see 

any offender, inmate fall through the cracks with this. 

So that's just my two cents. 

 MS. MCARDLE: Aaron?

 MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you, Marisa. I 

want to move to Dr. McTier's language change. And then 

I'd like to make sure we have time to really have a 

robust discussion on the best interest piece. So Dr. 

McTier, you had provided a language change. Well, I'm 

sorry, I don't want to put you on the spot. But you had 

offered language change, we don't have to discuss it if 

you don't want to now we can just hop right into the best 

interest piece. And we can hold that for later.

 DR. MCTIER: No, no, I'm just looking 

all over the screen. So I have to open up the other 

document. Yeah, I can quickly add it or state it, it's 

under 34 CFR 668.8. Prison Education Programs. 

Specifically, under 3i we propose adding language under 

3i that states after the two years of approval under two 

has been determined by the Bureau of Prisons, the 

appropriate State Department of Corrections or another 
19

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

entity that is responsible for overseeing correctional 

facilities. This is where we proposed adding language 

that says- Ready?

 MR. WASHINGTON: You know, Vanessa, I 

actually emailed it to you. Okay. I don't know. Maybe we 

can add it? I think she got it. There you go.

 DR. MCTIER: Yep. So we just want to 

make sure that what we add, will work collaboratively or 

in partnership with other key stakeholders, other higher 

education institutions, accrediting agencies, Board of 

Regents, higher education, and prison programs, it seems 

that based off this language, that sole power is given to 

the DOC to determine whether or not a program can be 

established. And we want to make sure that decision is 

made in partnership with educational agencies. So that's 

the language that we are proposing. And then I guess we 

can dive a little bit deeper into how that can actually 

come about. I don't know if that's something that we 

would need to add. But we do think there needs to be a 

level of a governing board or something of that nature 

that the DOC and the other agencies can work together 

with. 

 MS. MCARDLE: Dave. Yeah, I wanted to

-to think, obviously, we will need to give this more time 

and discussion, and we may want to move on before we get 
20

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

into too much detail. I just wanted to ask, before we do 

that, so that we can all think about this one. What did 

you have in mind right now it says we'll work 

collaboratively, collaboratively or in partnership with 

other key stakeholders. Do you mean with at least one of 

them that they must make the decision collaboratively? Do 

you mean multiple? I guess, when we get once we get to a 

final decision on this we'll need to have some 

specificity about exactly what's envisioned here.

 DR. MCTIER: I figured that was the 

case, which is why I said we can go I know that seems 

like for the sake of time, we don't want to go too deep 

right now, but we do have some proposed language for the 

collaborative and partnership component. But primarily 

looking at creating some boards or some task forces that 

can actually propose the establishment versus just the 

DOC making the sole decision on whether or not a program 

can come to their facility or not, so. Does that answer 

your question?

 MS. MCARDLE: It does. Yep. Thank you. 

Terrell.

 MR. BLOUNT: I apologize. I thought we 

were on to another section. The section right under that, 

so I'll save my comments.

 MS. MCARDLE: Okay, Aaron.
21

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

 MR. WASHINGTON: Yeah. So we are going 

to move into the best interest discussion now. Before we 

do, I, well Dr. Paccione has joined us. Dr. Paccione, 

would you like to introduce yourself to the to the 

(inaudible) subcommittee? Amy, I believe has Dr. Paccione 

joined us, Amy? Angie Paccione? 

 MS. WILSON: Yes. And she has I'm 

giving her mic and camera. Okay. She should be able to do 

it now.

 DR. PACCIONE: Okay, can you hear me? 

Can anyone hear me?

 MR. WASHINGTON: I can hear you. 

 DR. PACCIONE: Okay, super. 

 MR. WASHINGTON: It's a little faint, 

it's a little faint, and we can't see or can we, Sophia 

or Amy? Can you hear the video? Or?

 MS. MCARDLE: No, I don't. Oh, there 

she is, I got her now. 

 DR. PACCIONE: Okay. Yeah, I'm having 

some internet connection issues. And so that's why I kind 

of had to jump off and jump back on, I couldn't hear you. 

So my name is Dr. Angie Paccione. I am the Executive 

Director of the Colorado Department of Higher Education. 

And I'm representing SHEEO, the SHEEO organization on the 

subcommittee, state higher ed, executive officers. So 
22

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

I'll be listening in, but I'm going to go off camera 

because my connection is so poor, that when I go on 

camera, it usually drops. So I'm working on that.

 MS. MCARDLE: Aaron, I think it's 

possible we may have Ron Sann available now. Would you 

like to go to, okay, Ron.

 MR. SANN: Good morning. Are you able 

to hear me? You are? Okay.

 MS. MCARDLE: Yes, thank you.

 MR. SANN: Alright, I'm good for now. 

They can hear me. Thank you so much for your help. Bye 

for now. Bye, Aaron. Well, first, my apologies, I'm 

actually in the Department's headquarters, I thought that 

would be an improvement in the technology situation. But 

it was not. But I'm back now using just my laptop. And 

that seems to be working. So I just wanted to, you know, 

thank you for those comments about areas that you all 

thought might not be clear in terms of the regulation, my 

initial read was that there is no conflict. And certainly 

we would interpret our rules if these were the rules that 

were adopted to avoid those conflicts. But I mean, we 

will, you know, have to look at everything closely in the 

time between sessions to make sure everything's 

internally consistent as a legal matter. So those are my 

sort of reactions to the very helpful comments I heard 
23

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

this morning. And again, apologies for the technical 

glitch.

 MS. MCARDLE: Aaron.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Okay, so I think 

let's move into our discussion on the best interest, I do

have something I'd like to read before we start our 

discussion. And so I consulted with my colleagues. And I 

just want to thank everyone for their open and honest 

feedback yesterday on the language around the best 

interest of students. We very much understand and 

appreciate the consideration that you raised. And we 

completely agree that we want to balance the burden to 

institutions, any potential conflicts of interest, and 

the need to ensure that incarcerated students are getting

a high quality education. We are also working within some

specific statutory language. And we share that language 

with you to get your feedback. So today, like so today, 

I will be sure today when we're discussing language to 

state clearly when something is statutory. And also, my 

colleague, Vanessa has the statutory language at the 

ready. And so if there's any, if anything is unclear, 

we'll be able to project the statutory language to you 

all so we can see what was in statute and where the 

Department made slight changes. So one note I want to 

make is that this role for the state DOCs of approving 
24

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

educational programs is a new one for them, and one that 

is required by Congress. However, there is a role for us, 

the subcommittee to define that role. Without a clear 

definition in the Department's regulations and guidance, 

we are concerned that the Department of Corrections could 

interpret this in a myriad of ways. In some cases that 

might have negative consequences for students. 

Departments of corrections could choose to be overly 

restrictive in how they evaluate programs. They could 

interpret the statute as setting impossible to meet 

standards, or they can leave institutions out unfairly. 

That's why we need your feedback, the subcommittee's 

feedback, we're looking for the best possible ways we can 

work within the confines of the statute that requires 

DOCs to approve the programs based on elements like job 

placement rates and recidivism rates to give clear 

guardrails as to how DOCs may and may not do that. So 

with that, oh, I don't know if we had a question on that, 

Sophia. 

 MS. MCARDLE: I do have Dr. McTier.

 DR. MCTIER: Oh, I just wanted to 

state that Stanley Andrisse, Dr. Stanley Andrisse has 

been trying to get his mic and video approved, he's been 

sending emails, so I just wanted to put that out there.

 MS. WILSON: I'll take care of that 
25

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

now. Thank you.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you, Dr. 

McTier. So with that, we will dive back into continuing 

education-- yesterday, I stated that we'll start with job 

placement. But I wanted to go back through it and really 

kind of dive a little deeper and get more of the 

committee's feedback, I want to make sure that we hear 

from all of the subcommittee members on each of the 

indicators of best interest that the Department is 

proposing to define. And even if it's not a specific 

language change, or if it's not a specific proposal, I 

think it would be beneficial to hear from each of the 

constituencies. Unless, you know, you're just unless 

we're just agreeing with something somebody else said. 

But it would be it would be interesting to hear from each 

of the constituencies there, from their perspective from 

the groups that they represent how the Department can put 

parameters around defining each the indicators. And so 

the first indicator is continuing education posts, those 

that enroll in a prison education program and continue 

their education, post release. And so our rationale 

behind defining that is the appropriate. We want to see 

how many students you know will continue to or wish to 

continue their education post release. So it's pretty 

much I mean, the rationale is basically what the statute 
26

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

says. And the data source, we heard from the committee 

yesterday, that this is something that the DOP and DOCs 

may not have the capacity to do. And so we heard that the 

Department should use our system that David Musser talked 

about, such as the student loan, the National Student 

Loan Data System, in order to track enrollment of 

students, so I want to open it up there. So is that 

something that the subcommittee subcommittee could settle 

on—the Department would be the ones to track enrollment 

through our systems, because the other idea would be to 

the extent students that reenroll in an institution, the 

actual institution may be able to calculate a 

reenrollment rate.

 MS. MCARDLE: Dr McTier?

 DR. MCTIER: I can go with that. I 

think once because there's so many nuances, I guess that 

exists when a person returns back into the community, 

they're not necessarily going right away to a college 

program. I can think of a lot of my students who are 

obtaining their associate's degrees, and then once they 

get out, they have the opportunity to continue on to 

their bachelor's, but because of their parole or 

probation, or the location, the location in which they're 

returning back to doesn't have a college or university 

that they can readily attend, they won't necessarily be 
27

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

able to continue their education right away. So I do like 

the fact that we can put that on the Department of ED 

also will say this, that prisons are not experts in 

providing education and or collecting educational data. 

So I'm not exactly sure why we would allow or require the 

DOC to be responsible for that. Right now, it's difficult 

for them to, you know, track all of this other stuff. You 

know, when we look at the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 

that data is already lagging by the time we get that, 

that data is 10 years old. So having them do educational 

stuff, I just think it's going to be we're setting them 

up for failure. So I just wanted to put that out there.

 MS. MCARDLE: We have Belinda and then 

Kim. 

 MS. WHEELER: Yes, thank you. From a 

consumer advocacy group standpoint, I 100% agree that 

this is great that the Department believes that they can, 

can take care of this bucket for everyone. I think that, 

you know, as David pointed out yesterday, there's a lot 

of nuances that are going to happen. As you know, we 

start to collect that kind of data. And I think that the 

Department is well positioned to be able to take care of 

this. And I think from an equity standpoint, for both 

small programs, large programs, I think it's just, I 

think it's a great idea to have that. So I'm in 
28

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

definitely in support of the Department taking over that 

bucket. Kim.

 MS. CARY: I would agree, as I did 

yesterday that the Department should be responsible for 

this. And the only other options I think institutions and 

financial aid administrators would have would be to 

receive data from the Clearinghouse, which then 

automatically feeds into the NSLDS systems, Department of 

ED system. So that just seems like the logical place for 

it to land. Thank you.

 MS. MCARDLE: Dave. Okay. Well, first 

of all, glad to hear that subcommittee members believe 

that this could be workable, if the Department were to 

take on the role of provider of obtaining this data and 

calculating this rate. I just want to point out that we 

may need to make some language tweaks to the way that 

it's written here to identify recipients of Pell Grants 

as the ones that we will track following release, 

primarily, because those are the ones that we can have 

some degree of assurance that we will get enrollment 

information for. And of course, the other point was 

brought up in yesterday's meeting that we do need to make 

sure that we can overcome all of the privacy 

considerations, which are not insignificant on some of 
29

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

these. But in general, I'm still cautiously optimistic 

that the Department can take on this role. If we're able 

to obtain the data on individuals who are released. 

That's the primary component that we need to focus on. 

Terrell.

 MR. BLOUNT: Yeah, pardon me if this 

doesn't fall into this conversation, because as I'm 

listening to comments, it sounds like this is more geared 

toward the tracking and collection of data and that 

responsible entity, but I think it's just worth 

mentioning that one, in addition to Dr. McTier's point 

about an incarcerated individual participating in a 

prison education program with an educational institution 

that when they return home, they may not be anywhere near 

that institution or attended an institution in the 

community. That's one thing and then also, not everyone 

discloses that they had an incarceration history. And I'm 

speaking in regard to like, filling out, you know, the 

college's application. So just wanted to throw in there 

like that may be an obstacle in in tracking students that 

have participated in prison education programs. I think 

the last thing I'll just share is that there's also work

being done from organizations or by organizations, such 

as P2P and FICGN and a number of others to remove the 

question on the college applications. Because it's been 
30

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

found that when formerly incarcerated people see that 

question on conviction history, it normally leads to them 

no longer wanting to fill out the application thinking 

that they'll be discriminated against, or even worse, 

they complete it and wind up not being, you know, allowed 

to enroll in college. And my thoughts on that is any 

education institution that is going to enroll students in 

their college while they're incarcerated, should allow 

those same students to continue on campus in the 

community. It can't be you're good enough to be a student 

on it, and we utilize your Pell dollars while you're 

incarcerated. But when you come home, you can't come here 

because you're now a threat. That should not be and I'm 

not sure where that conversation needs to take place. But 

again, I just wanted to raise that.

 MS. MCARDLE: Aaron, did you want to 

respond to that or should we go to Stan?

 MR. WASHINGTON: Let's go to Stan 

first. 

 MS. MCARDLE: Okay, Stan.

 DR. ANDRISSE: Thank you for working 

through my technical complications, and so because I was 

unable to join fully, I wasn't I'm not sure if this has 

already been brought up or not. But, we, you know, we 

were wanting to propose the addition of, to that 
31

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

beginning part that there should be collaborative work 

with other stakeholders. And, I mean, has that been 

discussed already? Okay, so I'm sorry to be rehashing it. 

But did we get a feel for how people felt about that 

already as well? 

 MS. MCARDLE: Aaron?

 MR. WASHINGTON: Sorry to jump in. I 

think we stated that we're putting things in comment 

bubbles, Stan, and to let the subcommittee know that a 

language change has been proposed, but we still have to 

take that back to discuss it with the Department

leadership and legal counsel.

 DR. ANDRISSE: I see, I see now, I see 

Dr. McTier suggested adding collaborative. So I would

also, there's a stakeholder group that should 

specifically point to non-formerly incarcerated 

inclusion. So you know, if there is a third party entity 

that represents non formerly incarcerated or formerly 

excuse me, formerly incarcerated individuals, I think it 

should be added into that language. I agree with the 

stakeholders that are included. But I would add to that, 

that there should be specifically language around 

inclusion of formerly incarcerated and formerly and 

currently incarcerated stakeholders.

 MS. MCARDLE: Aaron?
32

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

 MR. WASHINGTON: Vanessa, can you add 

to that comment bubble, formerly incarcerated students? 

Thank you.

 DR. ANDRISSE: And/or groups that 

represent them. 

 MR. WASHINGTON: Okay.

 MS. MCARDLE: Dave? Yeah, mine's very 

quick and just responding to Terrell and his excellent 

point about the fact that formerly incarcerated 

individuals have very strong incentives not to report 

previous convictions or incarceration. So the method that 

we discussed earlier would involve the Department

identifying them as a student in a prison education 

program, identifying them that way, and then tracking 

them throughout their college career through the NSLDS 

database, which would I think, avoid that problem.

 MR. TANDBERG: Aaron.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Yeah, I think we 

have, I think we have enough to move on the benchmark. So 

the benchmark we would propose is to compare the rates of 

confined or incarcerated individuals, continuing their 

education post release to the overall transfer or 

continuing education rates at the institution. So we can 

get folks’ thoughts on that, I'll state it one more time. 

Compare the rates of confined or incarcerated 
33

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

individuals, continuing their education post release to 

the overall transfer, or continuing education rates at 

the institution. That would be the benchmark.

 MS. MCARDLE: Dr. McTier

 DR. MCTIER: So what about the 

students who are I guess I'm trying to wrap my brain 

around these benchmarks or this comparison, because, you 

know, students participate in programs, but they might 

still be in prison years after. And so is there. I'm just 

trying to understand that-- from the Department, what 

they're trying to obtain with that information I guess in 

a sense. 

 MS. MCARDLE: Aaron.

 DR. MCTIER: A comparison. 

 MS. MCARDLE: Aaron.

 MR. WASHINGTON: I think that we will 

get to hold that potential cohort momentarily, but I 

think if I can get your thoughts on just the benchmark 

like this, just the comparison overall. Do you have any 

ideas on what the proposed comparison is, and how to, I 

guess, flesh that out more or provide more clarity. Just 

your overall thoughts on the actual comparison that we're 

that we're proposing to make. So comparing the 

incarcerated individuals to other individuals. 

 DR. MCTIER: I think the comparing 
34

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

part is throwing, like really thrown me off. I'm a little 

bit confused. Are you comparing the graduation rates? Are 

you comparing?

 MR. WASHINGTON: Oh, sorry, so we're 

comparing the rates, that they continue their education 

post release. So this is not about graduation or 

completion, it’s earnings we're comparing. So if I was 

incarcerated, and I was in a prison education program, 

we're comparing if I was released, and then I continue my 

education post release, we will be comparing that to the 

overall transfer continuing education rates at an 

institution. So we're comparing that to students at the 

institution that are not incarcerated, enrolled in other 

programs at the institution, and their rates of 

continuing education.

 DR. MCTIER: Well, programs are really 

small not to interject a little bit. But programs are 

pretty small. And so the rate of people returning back to 

society can also be relatively small. So I just don't see 

that as a really good benchmark to compare to the normal 

population of students. It's not a good data point. What 

I'm saying- 

 MS. MCARDLE: Terrell.

 MR. BLOUNT: Yeah, one question, is 

this possible to highlight the part that Aaron is 
35

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

reading? If it's on the document that's being shared? And 

second, like just on the question that Aaron asked, I 

think I see where it could come in handy. Or be helpful 

if a corrections Department and other partners in 

deciding this as one of the metrics, maybe not the catch 

all, but maybe comparing the rate at which people are 

continuing post incarceration, I think it does speak to 

the type of work that that institution is doing in regard 

to student advising and just seeing people through 

completion. What, what I don't know about is whether or 

not comparing them to non-incarcerated students in the 

community and their persistence through the college 

piece, because I don't, I wouldn't say that they, they 

have the same needs and challenges in regard to 

completing a higher education degree. So I do see where 

you're going with it or whoever, you know, design and 

language, but I'm not sure if we necessarily want to look 

at a college that's proposing a prison education program. 

And we say, Okay, well, you know, you have a 79% 

graduation rate on the outside for your outside students. 

But your inside students aren't necessarily graduating at 

that same rate, those inside students, you know, or 

formerly inside students are facing a myriad of 

challenges that those on campus do not. So I think it's 

maybe something else that we should be looking at as 
36

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

opposed to that comparison. I'll stop there.

 MS. MCARDLE: Belinda.

 MS. WHEELER: Thank you very much for 

that, I would say from the consumer advocacy group side 

of things, and also with Vera doing the technical 

assistance, I'm personally and I think I can speak you 

know, for constituents who have reached out to me, I 

understand some potential concerns. I do think that this 

is a very proactive approach by the Department to check 

and make sure that those educational institutions, 

whether small or large, whatever that want to be in this 

space, that again, they are continuing to provide that 

support that we are going to expect, you know inside 

those carceral spaces, but what does that support look 

like on the outside and I just bring it up again, the 

words that Terrell had said about, you know, sometimes 

people just wanting the Pell money once people are there, 

but once they get out, you know, what, what does that 

kind of support look like in that whole issue with the 

checkbox and things like that. So I think, you know, 

from, from our side of things with the constituents that 

I've been speaking with, and also just what we've seen in 

Second Chance Pell, thus far, educational institutions 

are doing, it appears to be a really good job for those 

programs on the inside. And right now, there are some 
37

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

noted challenges on the outside, and I think this data 

point collection, I don't see it as being something that 

is going to, you know, immediately, you know, that the 

government's gonna say, oh, you're down, we're going to, 

you know, get rid of your funding, I think it's an

excellent conversation point for us. So that if we are 

seeing some kind of slippages here, that there can be 

more support given to these educational institutions or, 

you know, wraparound services or things like that. So I 

actually feel that this is a good data point, which will 

ultimately serve the students because we really want to 

make sure that you know, not only are they getting good 

quality while they're inside, but then that quality and 

that is, you know, that those, those support services are 

really kind of coming through. So I just wanted to, you 

know, say that, from my perspective and the groups that 

I'm representing, I think that there's a lot of great 

potential with this. Thank you. 

 MS. MCARDLE: Aaron.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you, Belinda. 

Dr. McTier and Terrell, I heard that maybe this may not 

be the most appropriate benchmark to compare students 

against other students at the institution. Do you have 

any ideas for other benchmarking that we can use to 

ensure that we define this indicator, but maybe there's a 
38

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

different benchmark that then you could propose?

 MR. BLOUNT: Yeah, as I mentioned, I 

totally recognize that it's just one of many. So if 

whatever else we may add to that as recommendation, 

again, looking at the totality of all of the marks, it 

may wind up that, you know, a college in prison program 

checks, you know, eight out of nine boxes, and if that 

one box that isn't marked is the completion rate on the 

outside, I think it's up to those partners that should 

include DOC, you know, community partners, and formerly 

incarcerated subject matter experts to make that 

decision, that final decision, I think, in cases like 

that, where maybe students aren't succeeding in the 

community and completing at the same rate, as 

nonincarcerated students are, though that partnership, 

which I think is so important, you know, would be able to 

determine whether or not that program is a quality 

program or not, and should be allowed in. So I don't 

think in my opinion, I currently don't have any ideas on 

if that should change or needs to be changed. I think it 

is more so all of the benchmarks together as long as they 

are sound and equitable and to Belinda's piece, one of my 

thoughts was on the student advisement part, I don't know 

which I forget which letter it is, but, I think 

providing, you know, quality academic advising, that 
39

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

letter maybe is something that we can tweak in order to 

catch and make sure that programs are offering sound 

advisement in prison and in the community.

 MS. MCARDLE: Aaron.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you for all 

your comments. Okay, let's move on into the cohort. So 

the Department- I think I was on mute. Can you hear me? 

Alright, so let's move on. Let's move on to the cohort. 

The Department would seek to include only students and 

Terrell this is not projected. So this is (inaudible), 

but we are talking about big A, the rates of confined or 

incarcerated individuals continuing education, post 

release. These are ideas that I'm kind of just providing 

to the subcommittee. So the Department would seek to 

include only students who will be released. Is there 

anything-- other considerations regarding the benchmark 

that I discussed? Are there any other considerations? And 

what are the considerations for the cohort that need to 

be made? So right now we argue that we would only include 

students who will be released. Are there any other 

considerations? And we're really looking for ideas from 

you know, everybody.

 MS. MCARDLE: Dr. McTier.

 DR. MCTIER: Can you please just 

repeat that one more time? I'm trying. I'm trying to 
40

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

reprocess and think on my toes. I just am- 

 MR. WASHINGTON: Yeah, so we're 

thinking we would like your ideas on cohort for our 

benchmarking idea. The Department would seek to include, 

only students who will be released, I apologize. I 

probably figured that incorrectly the first time, but the 

Department will seek to include only students who will be 

released. Are there any other considerations that you 

(interposing)

 MS. MCARDLE: Dr. McTier?

 MR. WASHINGTON: Cohort?

 DR. MCTIER: So I just have a question 

as to-- so would we have to send that information about

when a student is released to the Department of ED, and 

the if so, is there a timeframe? What does that look 

like?

 MS. MCARDLE: Dave. Excellent 

questions, again, ones that I don't think we've fully 

resolved and can't resolve quite yet. But let me propose 

how it might work. If we were to put this into practice, 

there are various ways that we could collect the 

information. One way would be to, for the Department to 

adapt its NSLDS system to obtain information about 

release dates for incarcerated individuals. We could do 

that either by having the school obtain that from the 
41

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

correctional agency or potentially by having the 

correctional agency log into the system and provide that 

data to us directly that way. And we would have to I 

think you made a good point, we would have to set some 

kind of a timeframe for doing that. I don't think it has 

to be so frequent, that it would cause it would result in 

significant burden. We would need it I think, at least 

once annually. But I think we would need to think a 

little bit more about from a systems perspective, when 

that would be necessary in order to calculate the rate 

that's been described in the in the regulation so far. 

Yeah, that's at least my high-level thoughts on how that 

might play out. I see no other hand up. Wait a minute, 

Aaron, go ahead.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Do we have any 

thoughts? I know we have representatives--the they

represent a wide range of constituencies on the on the 

subcommittee, do we have any thoughts from anybody who 

hasn't been hasn't had the chance to weigh in on this on 

this indicator?

 MS. MCARDLE: Kim.

 MS. CARY: Thank you. I know the 

conversation talks about completers and job placement and 

things like that. What about? How would we capture the 

students who change their mind that don't want to go 
42

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

finish their program and then they start and then decide 

that's not what they want to do? How would they fit into 

that overall percentage?

 MR. WASHINGTON: I think that, you 

know, I think that as David mentioned, you know, we those 

are things that we're looking we were looking for your 

feedback to ensure that the Department was taking into 

account all those factors. So while I might not have an 

answer for you directly to your question, to the to the 

question, that's something that we can take back and 

think more about how we would exclude students that just 

didn't want to continue on.

 MS. MCARDLE: Dr. McTier.

 DR. MCTIER: So for all of these 

indicators, and I'm thinking again, for all of these 

indicators, I wonder if it's also important for the 

Department of ED or The DOC whomever to collect data on 

the barriers actually prohibiting or deterring people 

from continuing their education once they're released. I 

think, some of these other things are not necessarily 

realistic. But I do think we need to definitely consider 

all of the barriers so that when we were proposing new 

legislation or new laws or new rules that we can have a 

clear understanding of what, what those barriers are. We

know on this committee, because we do this work, we're in 
43

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

the trenches. We research. I'm a researcher. I can tell 

you some of those barriers, but I do think, as 

benchmarks, I think the Department should definitely 

consider and be made aware of those, those barriers that 

prohibit them from actually continuing on.

 MS. MCARDLE: Belinda, and then Kim.

 MS. WHEELER: Yes, thank you for that. 

Just to piggyback off what Kim had said, and then kind of 

reiterate, I think Terrence and I are on the same 

wavelength there. I think it, I definitely think it's 

important that we capture, I think it's important that we 

capture that data, because again, we need to know, you 

know, the programs, the boots on the ground, the 

wraparound services, and corrections, like we need to 

know, you know, why a student isn't continuing. So you 

know, something like, I wonder whether or not first 

generation students, you know, we see oftentimes that, 

you know, just in general, with educational programming, 

that you know, the completion rates for people who fall 

into the bucket of first generation students, we've got 

data on that, what about, you know, people who are 

formerly incarcerated that start their educational 

journey on the inside, and perhaps we start to see data 

points that show, you know, once they are on the outside, 

that the bucket for first gen seems to be really big, 
44

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

then that's really important data that we can then use to 

try to, you know, being proactive, not reactive, you 

know, that we can try to engage those students, you know, 

and potentially get them back. And again, if they don't 

want to continue their education, that's certainly fine. 

But what other potential support can we give them for, 

you know, workplace services, or things like that. So, 

just wanted to put in my two cents there. Thank you very 

much.

 MS. MCARDLE: Kim.

 MS. CARY: Yes, thank you. To follow 

up on what McTier said there are barriers for that, once 

they complete, but there's also a multitude of barriers 

that really are not addressed in this subcommittee 

language that we're looking at, as far as how do we get 

them to be able to be eligible in the first place for the 

Pell Grant? There are so many barriers that these 

students have to overcome, because the student 

eligibility requirements are the same as students who 

don't have all of the different means available to them 

to access information to complete the FAFSA requirements. 

The verification doesn't go away for these students. 

Defaulted loans don't go away for the students, those are 

barriers to obtaining the Pell Grant. So even though 

this, the language is not addressing any of that, I think 
45

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

it's something that everyone needs to be aware of, and 

hopefully can be part of the bigger conversation. I know 

it’s certainly on the minds of financial aid 

administrators, as we work with students, or incarcerated 

individuals, and they may not have the support outside of 

their system to help them complete the paperwork 

information that they may need. Thank you.

 MS. MCARDLE: Aaron.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you for that 

Kim, I can speak to verification and I can turn it over 

to my colleague David Musser to speak about defaulted 

loans. We have thought about we have we have had 

discussions on verification. Verification is the items 

that the Department chooses to verify each year and 

acceptable documentation that accompanies those items is

released annually in the Federal Register Notice. And we

believe that maintaining that flexibility and not 

regulating on items that regarding confined/incarcerated

individuals would have to submit would be a good path 

forward because it would allow the Department to adjust 

to any changes or any, any unforeseen circumstances in 

the future. We certainly will take any of your feedback 

into what that acceptable documentation should be for 

confined or incarcerated individuals. But we would want 

to avoid actually regulating on those items and 

, 
46

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

documentation. I'll turn it over to David.

 MS. MCARDLE: Dave. Okay. Yeah, so and 

similar to what Aaron said about verification, the issue 

of resolving defaults that occurred either prior to or 

because of an individual's incarceration is something 

that the Department has been looking into. And we are 

trying to identify routes for those individuals to get 

out of default, that do not involve immediate repayment 

while they are incarcerated. We are also exploring 

options for how the servicing process can accommodate the

limitations that individuals experience when they're 

incarcerated, inability to have ready access to a phone, 

or the Internet, and all of the things that, that our 

current systems are set up around. I can't give final 

information about exactly how that will work. But I do 

want to let the subcommittee know that FSA has been 

exploring this issue for some time. And we do hope to 

have by the time this, this initiative rolls out in 2023, 

a robust mechanism for individuals to get out of default 

and to become Pell eligible again, through that process.

 MS. CARY: Thank you very much for 

that follow-up. It has been a great concern for me and 

colleagues as we move forward. So I'm glad to hear FSA is 

looking into that and we look forward to hearing from 

you.
47

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

 MS. MCARDLE: Aaron.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Okay, I think we 

should move into job placements. Job placement is B on 

your screen. So it says job placement rates for such 

individuals. The rationale is it will offer a sense for 

whether students are better able to find jobs or jobs in 

their fields after attending a prison education program 

than if they didn't attend the prison education program.

So a data source and the job placement rates could be 

measured through surveys of former students. Employment 

information may be available via College Scorecard using 

IRS data. Employment information on high school graduates 

could be available through the Census Bureau. But we do 

welcome feedback or research from the subcommittee about 

employment or job placement rates of non-prison education 

program graduates. I see we have a hand up so I will 

pause there.

 MS. MCARDLE: Stan.

 DR. ANDRISSE: Yes. So I just wanted 

to raise the same point that I pointed out yesterday with 

this regard to this one in terms of thinking about adding 

language about the collateral consequences of people who 

leave prison or, you know, formerly incarcerated 

individuals. And I would offer the prison policy 

initiative. I believe it is PPI that has extensive data 
48

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

on employment for people who leave prison and jail, and 

it has, you know, it has they have looked at the data by 

educational attainment. So I can send that along to the 

full committee. You know, I imagine that some may be 

familiar with that. But that may be something that's 

helpful. I do have concern about, you know, what, will 

there be a benchmark? I mean, are you moving towards 

writing in the language, a particular number that should 

be sought after? Or is it you know, are you not moving in 

that direction to make it, like in the regulations that 

they're, you know, the program needs X number or percent 

of employment.

 MS. MCARDLE: Aaron, would you like to 

respond? If not, we can go to Dr. McTier.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Sure. We wanted to 

talk about that during the second subcommittee session, 

and we wanted to kind of focus this session on the actual 

benchmark and providing you our rationale, providing you 

the rationale behind defining it. I mean, Congress wrote 

that we, you know, wrote in the statute that it has to be 

considered, but we must have the Department's rationale 

for defining it, and then discuss data sources and cohort 

for this meeting, and then that way we'd be able to- 

(interposing) 

 DR. ANDRISSE: I would say defining 
49

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

and using it is also my question I don't have opposition 

to including it. I just want further information on how 

it's going to be used. And, you know, to that regard, I 

think there needs to be language about the collateral 

consequences, and there needs to be, you know, reliable 

data based on you know, what employment data is for 

formerly incarcerated individuals. So I, you know, I'm 

not, in opposition to including it, I just have concern 

of how it's going to be used and that there needs to be 

language around collateral consequences.

 MS. MCARDLE: Dr. McTier?

 DR. MCTIER: I echo Dr. Stanley 

Andrisse on this point. For me, we already know these 

answers. We know that people with records are obtaining 

jobs at lower rates. And my question would then be, what 

type of jobs? Are we talking about jobs with 401k 

healthcare? Are we just talking about a very, very entry 

level job? I do have questions about the type of jobs 

data that the Department is trying to collect and does 

that job have to be related to the degree in which the 

student is seeking? I think the other piece to that is we 

have to also understand that it's not like students who 

are on the inside have an abundance of programs to choose 

from, it's typically one particular program that's 

offered at the prison, and then the students select that 
50

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

program by default, right. But then when they get out, 

they might have/want to do something totally different, 

unrelated to their degree. So I'm a little bit curious 

about that, that benchmark. To me, it seems like there's 

a hidden agenda, as I mentioned that, you know, the 

Department might be saying that, okay, we're going to see 

if this works. And if it doesn't work, because they're 

not getting jobs, then we strip up Pell grant funding. 

I'm, I'm very concerned about us looking at job placement 

rates, especially because the data exists already. We 

know that it exists. So just want to put that out there. 

I will add this before I yield my time. You know, when 

we're looking at job placement rates, are we considering 

the fact that our students don't have access to 

internships and the other tools and resources that 

traditional students have on the traditional campus? When 

they're collecting that particular data? I think that we 

have to account for the differences between the 

institutional types when trying to collect that data.

 MS. MCARDLE: Aaron, would you like to 

respond? Or should we go to Terrell?

 MR. WASHINGTON: Just so I don't lose 

this, Dr. McTier, you said the data exists. And can you 

provide some of the data you're referring to, if you 

don't have it now that's fine. But like, can you provide 
51

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

that through email? If extensive data exists can you 

provide that to us?

 DR. MCTIER: In terms of whether or 

not people (interposing) 

 MR. WASHINGTON: Placement for those 

that are incarcerated versus those that are that 

(interposing)?

 DR. MCTIER: Yeah, I can do that. I 

think the other issue is that we know that it's going to 

be it's going to look different state by state, that 

there's research on employers who won't hire people with 

criminal records. So I can provide that I don't know, 

what do you want four or five articles, what? I don't 

know what that what that data looks like for you.

 MR. WASHINGTON: I mean, just any 

relevant data that you have. I proposed this College 

Scorecard using IRS data, but if there's other data, we'd 

be more than interested to hear about it. Thank you for 

letting me jump in, everybody.

 MS. MCARDLE: Terrell, please. 

 MR. BLOUNT: Yeah, I think to answer 

the question around job placement, I think our goal 

should be to probably make this as broad as possible and

the way that it won't hinder prison education programs 

from possibly being you know, allowed to register or 
52

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

carry out courses, whatever that looks like implementing 

a prison education program. I will say that job placement 

rates shouldn't have been included in the first place 

because of everything that people have mentioned, the 

barriers that exist, the fact that job and labor market 

conditions kind of dictate the level of employment 

discrimination as Dr. McTier, you know mentioned, and 

also those policies that exist that maybe ban people with 

conviction histories, or specific conviction histories, 

and obtaining employment. So I think that's a reason why 

this shouldn't have been in there from the get-go. But 

operating, you know, from the understanding that this 

can't be changed, and it's more having the power and kind 

of influence in what job placement rates mean. I think, 

you know, just making sure that it's broad enough so that 

it doesn't prevent, you know, like, liberal arts programs 

from being in the facility, because it's maybe a little 

more challenging to prove to a corrections Department

that a liberal arts education can lead to this type of 

employment as opposed to like those technical programs. 

So or like if a college wanted to teach African Studies 

in the prison, you know, it would be a challenge to come 

up with data on how many graduates with African Studies 

degrees, wind up getting employment, but that doesn't 

mean that that program is any less valuable to students, 
53

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

as opposed to that, you know, welding certificate or, you 

know, any, like skill base program, and I think a lot of 

the comments that we've been hearing over the last two 

meetings, the conversation of corrections being and, and 

having a lot of power, and that say so and I think the 

emphasis on job placement, and focusing on that reentry 

piece too much. I think this kind of perpetuates that 

idea that we need to be inviting programs that are going 

to give people skills and lead to jobs is the piece 

that's a little problematic.

 MS. MCARDLE: Aaron, would you like to 

respond? Or should we go to Belinda, and then Kim?

 MR. WASHINGTON: Oh no, thank you for 

your comments Terrell.

 MS. MCARDLE: Belinda?

 MS. WHEELER: Great, thank you very 

much. Yeah, this is I'm really loving this conversation 

that we're having here. I think, you know, Dr. McTier 

mentioned, you know, the data, there's so much good data 

out there. And I just lift up briefly, the Rand 

Corporation’s, recent report that they did on 

specifically spotlighting North Carolina, and you know, 

the Pathways Program, you know, for students and moving 

forward. And then also Danny Morello in California, his 

amazing report that he did the possibility the campaign 
54

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

for College Opportunity, this is another area where, I'm 

not sure if I'm drinking too much of the education Kool 

Aid. But I'm really excited about this data point from 

the sense that, you know, if used correctly, and that 

we're not having, you know, predatory educational 

institutions trying to sell people a bill of goods, I 

think this is a really good opportunity for us to, you 

know, and I see how it's positioned under that two years 

of kind of, like, you know, checking to see how a program 

is going. And I think, you know, it's something as 

someone who used to, you know, teach at HBCUs, it's 

something that we're always looking at is, you know, 

where are our students being placed? Accreditation 

agencies, look at that, students look at that. And I 

think one of the things that, you know, to Terrell's good 

point, I think, if these educational partners that come 

into this space, are upfront and honest, you know, and 

they give students this choice, right, you know, you can 

do this degree, this degree, this degree, these are some 

of the, you know, these are some of the placement rates 

that we're seeing, you know, in X, you know, X field, you 

know, and these are the kind of income, you know, that 

you may expect to see, we're doing that on a lot of the 

traditional campuses with traditional programming. And I 

think making sure that students you know, whether 
55

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

incarcerated or not, have access to these data points to 

know that there are unbelievable challenges here. This is 

a really good opportunity, again, being proactive, as 

opposed to reactive, where we can kind of help guide you 

know, both educational institutions that are, you know, 

doing good in this space and supporting them. But then 

making sure you know, there's so many many educational 

entities who want to be in this space that may not have 

the best interests of students, not just looking at the 

students as dollar signs, and I think this is a really 

good way for us to kind of make sure that students are 

getting the information, you know, available to them 

upfront about realistic possibilities. As an English 

major, you know, if a student wants to take English, 

that's great, but letting them know, because perhaps if 

they are currently incarcerated, they may not have a 

wealth of information with internet and telephone to kind 

of find out about what X degree like being able to 

compare degree X with degree Y, that they get a little 

bit more information. And again, for us on the, you know, 

on the outside who are trying to serve these students, 

making sure that if we do see, you know, by being able to 

collect this data in ways that we haven't been able to, 

to kind of see where some of these gaps are, so that we 

can work together as a team, you know, to lift up those 
56

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

wraparound services or other things that need to be 

there. So thank you.

 MS. MCARDLE: Kim.

 MS. CARY: Thank you, Belinda, I think 

it's a what I have to say it's gonna follow up nicely to 

what you just mentioned, I understand the job placement 

rate component, I think really the idea should be the 

weight should be on the institutions, as to the programs 

that they are going to go in and say we want to offer 

these. I know, as a second chance Pell school, we really 

had to give a lot of thought to the program that we have, 

because students could potentially come out of that 

within a year. And so we know that they're not going to 

complete their program of study. So what classes do we 

want to make sure that they have up front that will 

benefit them the most, as they continue on in their 

education when they leave? Or if they do not? Do they 

have enough in those classes that we provided to them to 

help them find employment? I think the Department should 

weigh heavily the application requirements as this opens 

up to many, many schools to put the weight back on. Now I 

know I'm saying that for my colleagues, who will probably 

say no, but it really does fall back on us to make sure 

we are providing the proper programs, making available a 

variety of programs, but also building in those you know, 
57

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

programs so that we know-- when I go for an interview, 

how am I going to handle that building, those kinds of 

things, in not assuming that they're going to know how to 

do that upon graduation, you build them into the program 

as opportunities. So I just challenge institutions that 

are listening and thinking about this and the Department

to maybe look at the application process and make sure 

those types of things are built in. Thank you.

 MS. MCARDLE: Aaron.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you. Let me let 

me propose a potential benchmark. So we could compare the 

job placement rate or the employment rate of a prison 

education program, prison education program graduates 

against the job placement rate, or the employment rate of 

those with a high school diploma. Or we can compare that 

against the job placement rate and/or the employment rate 

of formerly incarcerated individuals who do not complete 

a prison education program. So we're either comparing 

those with a high school diploma or the graduates of a 

prison education program (the job placement rates) to 

those that were formerly incarcerated but did not 

complete that prison education program.

 MS. MCARDLE: Dr. McTier.

 DR. MCTIER: How exactly are we 

comparing them to the high school diplomas? It's a little 
58

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

bit insulting.

 MR. WASHINGTON: I that is just an 

idea. That is not as you can see on the screen, there's 

no regulations. I don't know, Vanessa may have taken it 

down. But there's no regulatory language there yet. But 

thank you, Vanessa. You don't have to leave it up there 

for the discussion. I think that was a good idea to take 

it down for the discussion. Thank you. Thank you for just 

showing it though, Vanessa. I think that was an idea. And 

the Department definitely takes your comments back to 

consider them. As you stated, you believe that it's 

insulting to compare them and compare those in prison 

education programs against those with high school 

diplomas. 

 MS. MCARDLE: Belinda.

 MR. WASHINGTON: You have I'm sorry, 

Sophia. Dr. McTier, do you have any other ideas for 

potential benchmarking? How could we compare employment 

rates for graduates of prison education programs?

 DR. MCTIER: So I would, I will have 

some. I just need some time to muster that up and provide 

them. But the reason why I said it's a little bit 

insulting is because again, high school students are 

graduating with their high school diplomas, and we can't 

expect them not to have that job experience. And they now 
59

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

are saying a person with an associate's or bachelor's 

degree, now we're comparing them to someone with a high 

school diploma. Yeah, seems a little bit insulting to me,

 MR. WASHINGTON: I can just I'm sorry, 

I apologize. But I really do apologize. I think Dr. 

McTier you said you would be willing to provide some 

other benchmarking. And as common as it is, you know, 

commentary arises, and if people and subcommittee members 

like it or don't like it, I think my next question will 

probably always be, if you could provide an alternative, 

that'd be very helpful. Thank you. I'm sorry, Belinda.

 MS. MCARDLE: Belinda.

 MS. WHEELER: You're fine, you're 

fine. Totally fine. So just a point of clarification, and 

maybe I don't want to minimize what you're saying, Dr. 

McTier because maybe I'm hearing it differently, or maybe 

I misheard, but what I'm potentially hearing right now 

isn't if I'm hearing it correctly, isn't that what the 

Department already does? Hasn’t the Department already 

done that for traditional students, without any kind of

carceral history-- we look at the employment rates data 

of someone with a high school degree, someone with an

associate's degree, someone with a bachelor's, and we use 

that data to help students determine possible career 
60

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

earnings? They might think about jobs they could get with 

a high school diploma, but boy, if I decide to do the 

associate's degree, I might be looking at this salary... If 

what you're suggesting as a potential benchmark is simply 

just doing that same thing. But putting it in the context 

for, this new student group that we're embracing as a 

country once again, after 1994. You know, like, again, I 

don't know if I'm doing the Kool Aid here, but it just 

seems to me that that would be really, you know, when 

we're thinking about access for students and students 

being well informed about what an educational degree 

could do for them, especially with so many people, you 

know, who are unfortunately, in this space, that are 

oftentimes first generation as well as other challenges 

that society is putting on them. I think this 

information, if I'm hearing this correct, would be really 

valuable, so that someone who is incarcerated or they 

have a loved one in the community, you know, and they're 

talking about, hey, Pell For All, you know, should I do 

it? I think perhaps some of this data would be really 

useful, because then there can be those conversations 

where people would be like, Okay, well, you know, I'm 

currently incarcerated, I'm completing my GED. I hope if 

I want to go into this career, this might be the 

potential, you know, income I could provide for my 
61

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

family, for my community. You know, they do seem to have 

you know, perhaps in a utopian society, we have three 

different colleges in three different carceral spaces. 

And in the same carceral space, one offering an 

associate’s, one offering a certificate and one offering 

a Bachelor's by having those data points, I would think 

that we would be providing students with information that 

would help them kind of perhaps, make educated decisions. 

But again, you know, Dr. McTier, if I have misread what 

you're saying, or if I didn't hear correctly what Aaron 

said. But from what I heard, it seems like this would be 

valuable information for students. So but feel free to 

push back Dr. McTier?

 DR. MCTIER: No. So are, can I talk, 

is it okay? Yes. No, no, sorry. I think the way it was 

just stated was that compared to high school, students 

with a high school diploma, I think what you're saying is 

totally different in terms of like showing the different, 

the wide variety of educational opportunities. But again, 

I think this information is for the Department of ED, not 

so much the students, I think we would have to be 

responsible to get that information to the students, like 

the benchmark information is what I'm understanding. I 

just thought it was a little bit insulting to say, no 

when you get an associate's degree, it's going to we know 
62

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

that, you know, when a person gets an associate's or 

bachelor's degree, there's been arguments about what it's 

equivalent to. Right? But to put that language into this 

document, I think, for me with I don't know, I just maybe 

I just interpreted that totally wrong. But your 

explanation is, eases me a little bit. I guess.

 MS. MCARDLE: I see no hands right 

now.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Okay. Thank you for 

that, Belinda. So, in thinking about a potential cohort 

that we would seek to include only students who would be 

released as well. So thinking about the potential 

benchmarking that we just discussed. Is there any other 

consideration that we should make for the cohort? For 

cohort comparisons? 

 MS. MCARDLE: I see no hands.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Alright, what was the 

next one? I see. (Inaudible) I think Vanessa is posting 

it now. Here we go. Thank you, Vanessa. Alright. Okay, 

well, let's move into earnings (inaudible) that we have 

24 minutes until lunch. So let's talk about let's move on 

into earnings now. And then we can pick back up after 

lunch with this discussion. So the rationale for is it's 

in the statute first, and then also, it provides a basic 

sense of whether students are better off having attended 
63

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

the prison education program than if they had not. So one 

of the potential benchmarks that we consider--whereas 

comparing median earnings of a Prison Education Program 

graduate to the median earnings of a high school graduate 

and I that that that did appear on that did appear in the 

in the issue paper. And so I'll stop there and end for 

comment.

 MS. MCARDLE: Belinda.

 MS. WHEELER: I would just thank you 

for the opportunity, I would just reapply just what I'd 

said before, you know, just like job placement, just like 

earnings. I feel that if used wisely, this information, 

again, provide its existing information that we have for 

people who don't have carceral experience and data points 

and job earnings. I remember at my former institution, 

students would be like, hey, if I, if I do this degree, 

what is my potential job earnings? Again, if used wisely, 

as I'm expecting, you know, ED to be using the data 

points, I see this as valuable information for students 

and for potential students and also their communities.

 MS. MCARDLE: I see no other hands.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you Sophia. So 

a potential data source would be that the Department of 

Education produces program level earnings via the College

Scorecard using IRS data. Many states have wage matches 
64

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

produced using state unemployment insurance systems. And 

their earnings of a typical, or the earnings of a typical 

high school graduate are available from the Census Bureau 

and have been used in scorecards, versatile earnings 

measures. So those are some potential data sources. Does 

anybody have any based on the proposed benchmark, are 

there any other data sources that the Department could or 

should consider? If you don't have any now- 

 MS. MCARDLE: Actually we have 

Belinda. Belinda. I think you're on mute.

 MS. WHEELER: Sorry, sorry about that. 

So just a couple of data sources that, you know, we have 

seen that we have used in some of our work was also the, 

the IRS. Well, there was one study that used IRS data 

that was looking at found that about half of formerly 

incarcerated people found formal work within the first 

year of returning home and they tabulated data that 

showed that after a full year of release, it was 

approximately just under around $14,000. That data source 

was, let me just see here what it was. It was Adam 

Looney, and Nicholas Turner, but they were using IRS 

data. To help with that report, I can send that via 

email, you know, to the to the group as well. But I just 

wanted to make sure that I lifted that up, since you'd 

asked. Thanks, Aaron.
65

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

 MS. MCARDLE: No other hands.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you, Sophia. So 

potential cohort definitions will be the Department could 

seek to exclude students who have more than a certain 

number of years left on their sentence. This will require 

additional reporting. And we also could include wages for 

those individuals who graduated and are released. So I'll 

say that again, the Department could seek to continue to 

exclude students who have more than a certain number of 

years left on their sentence, and instead include wages 

for only those individuals who graduated and are 

released. 

 MS. MCARDLE: No hands.

 MR. WASHINGTON: So I guess just stay

on this one for a moment. Is this something that comes 

up—does the committee feel that the Department should be

responding because the Department would calculate using 

the data that we use? Are they tapping into our own data

sources, such as the College Scorecard using IRS data? 

Are there any other-- or does the subcommittee feel as 

though potentially institutions or the Bureau of Prisons

would also have a stake in, you know, calculating or 

benchmarking or have any stake in the potential data 

sources that we would use? Or is it something that kind 

of like the continuing education post release, the 
66

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

subcommittee thinks that the Department should kind of 

have ownership over the data? And calculation and the 

cohort and define the cohort? 

 MS. MCARDLE: Belinda.

 MS. WHEELER: Can I just ask a point 

of clarification there, Aaron. So the very first part of 

the of what you'd said was about potentially blocking, 

was it blocking data of people who have like say someone 

and who are currently incarcerated, has a life sentence, 

but they do their degree, you know, in the first four 

years that they're actually incarcerated-- are you 

referring to not using that, like withholding that data 

until they get closer to the release so that there's no 

adverse kind of situation for a higher education prison 

program? Is that what you're referring to? I just want to 

double check that.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Yeah, so we're just 

excluding students who have more than a certain number of 

years left on their sentence. Because if somebody has a 

license, and then they would probably have earnings. 

There would be there no post release earnings to 

benchmark.

 MS. MCARDLE: Dr. McTier.

 DR. MCTIER: I think there's a level, 

for me, I'll speak for myself. So I'm trying to follow so
67

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

I'm reading the document, but some of the things that it 

seems like you're proposing or suggesting I don't 

actually see in the document, so it makes it difficult 

for me to provide a response. And so if it's possible, 

could you put that up on the screen for us visual 

learners? I see that document but what the additional 

stuff that you're mentioning and bringing up? I'm trying 

to process it and I need to see it. 

 MR. WASHINGTON: During the break I'll 

consult my colleagues and we can try and get something 

for you for sure.

 DR. MCTIER: Thanks.

 MS. MCARDLE: Terrell.

 MR. BLOUNT: No, I was gonna ask the 

same thing. It's kind of difficult to make 

recommendations or even share thoughts just from hearing 

those pieces verbally.

 MS. MCARDLE: And Belinda.

 MS. WHEELER: Yes, thank you very 

much. To get back to your question, Aaron, about who 

would perhaps retain that data or keep an eye on that 

data? I do think because, you know, this is funding 

coming from the Department through Pell and because the 

Department is doing so much with accreditation agencies, 

the educational institutions and things like that, I 
68

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

think from what we've been seeing, you know, at Vera with 

technical assistance, and you know, talking with second 

chance Pell programs that are part of the experimental 

side initiative, those data points coming from the 

Department of ED, are really good internally, you know, 

on that, on that micro level. When I was, directing a 

program myself, you know, being able to pick up the phone 

and go straight to the Department of ED or go to their

website was really helpful. And then, you know, on this 

other side, as we're going to all of us going to be 

creating so much new information research, hopefully, in 

very positive ways to move this, you know, this 

experiment into something just absolutely beautiful. I do 

see a benefit with the Department of ED actually 

controlling this bucket, I'm not sure that we would have

anyone else kind of controlling this bucket. And if the 

Department was thinking of potentially someone, someone 

else--,but I do think from, you know, both the value for 

the students for the dissemination of Pell monies and 

things of that nature, accreditation agencies, research, 

it does seem like a good, centralized place, and also 

equity for financial aid directors, and, you know, things 

of that nature, and program directors. So I just add 

that. 

 MS. MCARDLE: Dave. I think this has
69

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

been a really helpful discussion, I've appreciated 

hearing the views of everyone about how this might work. 

And its value to the community, we will have to think 

about how this might be done in practice. You know, as 

you guys mentioned, this is program level earnings and 

data are collected using classification of institutional 

program codes that institutions provide to the 

Department. Again, we're going back to NSLDS enrollment 

reporting. And that is a mechanism that we might be able 

to leverage for this process. However, there are some 

challenges that we will have to think about. One of them 

is the small programs, you guys just mentioned. In

another context, that these are often small programs that 

have a small number of students. And there are privacy 

considerations that the Department has to take into 

account, when we have very small numbers of individuals 

in programs that we often have to de-identify and deal 

with that data, it might still be something that we can 

do. But we'll take it, we will take a look at it and see 

whether that's feasible. And we have Kim.

 MS. CARY: Thank you. And I know for 

the state of Missouri, we have the Missouri Department of 

Higher Education with MDHE for the Missouri secondary and 

higher education areas they have if you receive Perkins 

funding, then you're required to do 180-day follow up 
70

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

with your graduates so that maybe information that the 

states are already gathering from institutions as a data 

point that could be looked into if all states have the

same type of formatting that they're required to do under 

Perkins.

 MS. MCARDLE: And no other hands.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you, Kim. So 

let's so we did want to propose two different definitions 

for earnings. And another definition could be again, Dr. 

McTier, I know I'm gonna try and get to you something 

that gives you something to post after the break., But 

another measure just, we only have 10 minutes left until 

lunch. But another measure we were thinking of is 

measuring incarcerated students who enrolled in a prison 

education program against other students who did not-- to 

measure a wage premium. And the potential benchmark will 

be comparing median earnings of a prison education 

program graduate against the wages of someone who was 

incarcerated but did not enroll in college.

 MS. MCARDLE: I see no hands.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Some potential data 

sources will be that the Department will produce program 

level earnings via the College Scorecard using IRS data 

similar to our other proposed personal data source. And 

also, many states have wage matches produced using state 
71

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

unemployment insurance systems. And we also welcome 

feedback or research from the subcommittee about the wage 

premium of prison education programs specifically in a 

potential cohort, the Department would seek to exclude 

students who have more than a certain number of years 

left, and instead include wages for only those 

individuals who have graduated and are released. And I 

think David is going to add more to this conversation on 

earnings.

 MS. MCARDLE: So Belinda had her hand 

up for a sec. No, changed your mind? Okay. Dave. Sure, I 

wanted to give just a little bit more background as to 

why the Department is focusing on earnings for high 

school graduates as a point of comparison to earnings of 

graduates of a postsecondary program, specifically in 

this context that are graduates of a prison education 

program. As Belinda mentioned earlier, that comparison is

something that we've been doing for some time through the

College Scorecard, taking median earnings from the 

personal income tables, from the 2014, CPS ASEC, for high

school graduates ages 25 through 34. And comparing that 

to the earnings data that we received through our MOU, 

you with Treasury, through the College Scorecard, and 

it's essentially intended as a measure of the labor value

of postsecondary education in general. So I think the 
72

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

idea here is that we would be applying that more narrowly 

to see what the added value of the prison education 

program is for individuals who graduated from that 

program. So just a little bit of context, and we can dig 

in a little bit more to the College Scorecard mechanism 

for doing that calculation if you guys are interested. 

Dr. McTier.

 DR. MCTIER: Yeah, I think so hearing 

that, actually, that added value component was a concern. 

Higher Education and prison programs are an added value. 

Because without it, our students or individuals with 

records will continue to face barriers without the 

degree. I mean, they're facing it with the degree but 

definitely without the degree. So I think right there is, 

is the added value. So in hearing that comparing the 

data between-- so my question then becomes, are we 

getting permission from the students to track that data, 

where they work, their earning potentials? How would you 

go about that? Especially if students are transient 

between different locations, different jobs? How would 

that stuff be tracked?

 MS. MCARDLE: Yeah. So that's an 

excellent question. And it's one that I don't have a 

perfect answer for. However, in general, whatever the IRS 

can track, we track because we, we get the data through 
73

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

our MOU with Treasury, we then de-identify the data, so 

that the individual's information is not disclosed. But 

it's included in our calculation of the of the comparison 

of earnings. So we don't receive explicit permission from 

individuals. And again, this is for all post-secondary 

programs that we do this in the College Scorecard. But 

through that de-identification, we are able to act, take, 

get, you know, aggregate information about these 

individuals and their eventual earnings. What we can't 

control for is that there are sometimes earnings that we 

can't account for because it's not accounted for on a 

student's tax return. And that has come up in a variety 

of contexts. And this is another one where it would, it 

could be a source of concern, but it is something that we 

have to acknowledge that we only have information that's 

as good as the data source that we're working from.

 DR. MCTIER: And I guess that's 

assuming that individuals are actually completing their 

tax returns. Because that's the other piece-- access to 

you know, technology and the, you know, computers too, if 

they're using TurboTax, or other things like that, or if 

they're going in person, but again, I think, you know, 

there's a lot of barriers with the tax in and of itself. 

So collecting that data, I don't know if it would 

necessarily be accurate. Because of the nature of the 
74

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

population, right, that we're serving, Surely there's 

going to be individuals who do complete their taxes. I 

don't want to generalize this but I do know that there 

are a lot of others who are getting out. And taxes are 

the last of their concern. They're trying to survive, and 

they just don't have the necessary resources to provide 

that information. So again, it goes back to the 

Department of ED. Is that really needed? I mean, I guess 

it is needed, but I mean, for the population is it going 

to be accurate? And do we need to really include that 

information in this rulemaking process?

 MS. MCARDLE: Dr. McTier. Aaron.

 DR. MCTIER: So we're reaching, we're 

approaching the lunch hour. Perhaps we break here and 

come back to continue the conversation post break. And I 

will work on some things behind the scenes to get you all 

some more information on this chart. Does anybody have 

any further comments before we break?

 MS. MCARDLE: Belinda.

 MR. WASHINGTON: You're on mute, 

Belinda.

 MS. WHEELER: Alright, sorry, I would 

just reiterate again, that, you know, if used correctly, 

as we're imagining that they will, that this is a good, 

you know, a good resource for us as we move forward to 
75

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

make really good equity, access, quality, you know, for 

individuals as they're starting their journey with 

education. And then, you know, again, you're looking at 

as educational partners, corrections, accreditation, 

others look at those wraparound services for individuals 

as they start reentry. You know, Dr. McTier brought up an 

excellent point, you know about the tax things. That's 

something that an educational institution themselves may 

not do. But this would, if we're seeing gaps with the 

data, this is a perfect opportunity, I think, for 

educational partners or others to reach out to others 

within the community to again, provide some of those 

wraparound services and things like that. So, you know, I 

think Dr. McTier is correct. I think it might look a 

little ugly, you know, the first year or two, you know, 

as we're trying to get this data, because there will be 

some slippages in places but, you know, assuming that, 

you know, we're all moving forward with the best interest 

of students in mind, which is exactly what this benchmark 

is supposed to be for, I think it's valuable for us 

moving forward. Thank you. 

 MS. MCARDLE: Cary. Kim, I'm sorry.

 MS. CARY: That's fine. Just to follow 

up with what Belinda is saying, and those wraparound 

services are so critical. And institutions should take 
76

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/19/21

extra care, to create those partnerships in the 

community, to help with those job placements. To know 

that as they're coming out, we've already talked with 

those corporations or businesses in our area to be more 

open to hiring formerly incarcerated students. That's 

just part of the partnerships that institutions are going 

to need to do moving into this new realm.

 MS. MCARDLE: And I see no more hands.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Okay, with that, 

let's move into our lunch break and reconvene at 1:00 

p.m. Thank you all.
77

Subcommittee Meetings- 10/19/21