1 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

OFFICE OF POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION 

PRISON EDUCATION PROGRAMS SUBCOMMITTEE 

SESSION 2, DAY 2, AFTERNOON 

November 9, 2021 

On the 9th day of November, 2021, the 

following meeting was held virtually, from 1:00 p.m. 

to 3:00 p.m., before Jamie Young, Shorthand Reporter in 

the state of New Jersey. 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

2 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

P R O C E E D I N G S 

MR. WASHINGTON: The prison education 

program subcommittee. We're just going to dive back into 

the language. There were a few, well, first I'd like to 

welcome Dr. McTier back. I, I totally misinterpreted your 

email, Dr. McTier, I thought that you were going to be 

joining tomorrow, but I'm happy to see that you're 

joining that your able to join us today. And what I 

wanted to do was circle back to I did not take a 

temperature check on application requirements. I also 

didn't, we didn't discuss the report, and I wanted to 

provide a clarification on our OGC Rep. Steve Finley's 

recommendation in the limitation and termination of 

approval of a prison education program. Before we dive 

into the best interest piece. So if we could, Vanessa, if 

you could share your screen, can you go to 668.238 

application requirements. Yeah. Thank you, so I just 

wanted to I know we have some blue comment bubbles that 

the Department needs to address. But here, Dr. McTier, 

just just as an update, we did, Vanessa, if you could 

scroll down a little bit, just, uh, yeah, we did add so 

based on your recommendation, we added back in the 

comment bubbles from the first session and also we 

responded to your your your comment about reentry 

counseling. And had some other recommendations made by 
 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

3 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

other subcommittee members to fix a few things, but I 

just want to take a temperature check on this section to 

see if where the subcommittee was with this section. Does 

the Department need to address anything other than what's 

in blue in the comment bubbles? And if you do, if you if 

you do if you have a thumbs down, remember that, just 

raise your hand and let us know why. I'll, pause there. 

MS. MCARDLE: I, I see a hands up from Stan. 

DR. ANDRISSE: So just to acknowledge my 

comment in the, in the bubble. 

MS. MCARDLE: And Belinda? 

MS. WHEELER: Thank you. Nothing additional 

just wanted to highlight the bubbles with attention to 

that, but that's it. Thank you. 

MS. MCARDLE: And that seems to be it. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Alright, so it sounds like, 

Vanessa, can you, she's already doing it. I'll give her a 

second. And, I skipped over reporting requirements before 

the. 

MS. MCARDLE: One moment, Aaron. I see 

Belinda's hand is up again. Thank you. 

MS. WHEELER: I sincerely apologize. I just 

wanted to double check. I think Vanessa might have 

accidentally when she went to put that new bubble in 

about the thumbs-down, it looked like the other bubble 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

4 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

that had the the big blue text actually accidentally got 

deleted. So I just wanted to make sure that, oh, there 

you are. okay, sorry my bad, Vanessa. Thank you. 

MS. MCARDLE: okay, I think we can move on. 

Aaron, I think you're on mute. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Yeah, I am. Yeah. I think I 

inadvertently skipped over reporting requirements at 

668.239. So we've separated, so here what we've done is 

we've separated the reporting requirements into two 

paragraphs and updated the language. There was no 

substantive change made. It was a technical edit for for 

clarity. So we're still we're still recommending that the 

that all of the reporting required the reporting required 

by statute be outlined in a Federal Register notice as 

published by the by the Secretary. Do we have any 

comments on here? I'd like to mention that we have Soren 

Lagaard as well from our general counsel's office that 

will be replacing Steve Finely for the remainder of the 

afternoon session. 

MR. LAGAARD: Just until 2:00 p.m. but yeah. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Oh okay, okay. Steve will 

be rejoining us? okay. And so, Sophia, do we have any 

comments on the reporting language? 

MS. MCARDLE: Nothing at this moment. 

MR. WASHINGTON: okay, can we take a 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

5 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

temperature check on that? Any thumbs down? I think we 

didn't have any thumbs down last time, I just I just 

wanted to make sure that we didn't need to revisit it. So 

just put your hand up if you have a thumbs down. 

MS. MCARDLE: No, no thumbs. 

MR. WASHINGTON: okay. And the, Vanessa if 

you can go down to the 668.240. So scroll down a little 

more. Oh, no, you're fine right there. Can you expand 

that comment bubble, Vanessa, where it says 11/19 Steve 

Finely? So I misinterpreted what Steve was saying, Steve 

was just saying to add initiates in between Secretary and 

limits. So the sentence, obviously we'll take this back 

and we'll propose it we'll finalize the language 

hopefully by tomorrow. But it would say if the Secretary 

initiates a limitation or termination of an institution's 

approval, then they would have to submit a teach-out 

plan. So that's just to clarify that. So I had said it 

needs to be a cross reference, but if he was, he was 

actually proposing to add initiates in there. So could we 

do a temperature check on that section? If there are any 

if there are any. I think that was the only that's the 

only comment in there, actually. So there are any thumbs 

down, please just raise your hand. 

MS. MCARDLE: I don't see any hands. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Alright, so before we jump 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

6 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

into best interest, we have one more section that I 

wanted to look at and there were no thumbs down there, 

but there were some changes, but just some technical 

updates so I did want us to look at it, you know, so the 

subcommittee to actually see it. And so it was, Vanessa 

if you could scroll down past best interests. And right 

there, I think we may need to make an additional update, 

I think the best interest is 241 in this section it's 

241. So this might this may need to be 242. But Vanessa, 

can you put a comment bubble just a check? I'm not sure I 

just I thought for some reason that the best interest was 

241 as well. I could be wrong. Alright. The only thing 

we've done here is updated the cross references. This 

section was about the the wind down or we actually titled 

the transition to a Prison Education Program because we 

hope that institutions, postsecondary institutions 

currently offering eligible programs at correctional 

facilities will want to transition their programs to 

prison education programs. And this will be the process 

for the time frame for that transition process. And also, 

you know, if if consequently, a postsecondary institution 

decides not to transition the program to a prison 

education program, meaning they decide not to go through 

the requirements that we're proposing here today, then 

they would also have this time to win the program down. 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

7 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

And all we've done here is. Put a title in and updated 

the cross references. 

MS. MCARDLE: Belinda? 

MS. WHEELER: Thank you. I just had a super 

quick question, this goes back to a clarifying question 

that I sent this morning, and I understand that the 

subcommittee has not had a chance to, you know, review it 

or respond, so I definitely understand that. Just wanted 

to clarify when we're talking about the transition to 

prison education programs, does this include the Second 

Chance Pell round one, two, and the threes that will be 

joining next year? Or is this something completely 

different? Just wanted some clarification on because I 

understand with the Second Chance Pell they are 

experimental, they've kind of some of them have had their 

own deadlines, but I noticed in this text there's nothing 

with regards to the Second Chance Pell experimental 

sites, and I just wanted to check that I wasn't off base 

on that. 

MS. MCARDLE: Aaron? 

MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you for that, 

Belinda. We did discuss that and originally we did have 

actual regulatory language there. But the Second Chance 

Pell is not in regulation like we don't define that and 

we defined it through a, I believe, a Federal Register 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

8 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

notice or other regulatory guidance. And so we thought 

that it would be best to provide guidance on the three 

phases of the Second Chance Pell Experimental Site 

through a Federal Register notice or some other form of 

self regulatory guidance. We are open to hearing your 

thoughts, though, on, you know. How the Department should 

amend the federal like, you know, amend the the Second 

Chance Pell experiments, but we didn't recommend to 

actually regulate on that. So Belinda, if you had any 

comments that you know on that, we would we'd be willing 

to hear them as a subcommittee. 

MS. MCARDLE: Belinda? 

MS. WHEELER: Thank you. Let me just sit 

with that just for a minute, I want to check in on a few 

different things there. I totally yeah, I just thank you 

for that clarification because I was thinking that it 

probably wasn't regulated, but I just wanted to make 

sure. So I will definitely make sure that I will get back 

if I do have language by tonight so that we've definitely 

got that. But thank you for that. I appreciate the 

clarification. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Yeah. So this section is 

really just in regards to, you know, a local jail or a 

juvenile justice facility that is currently offering an 

eligible program to those that are confined or 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

9 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

incarcerated in that correctional facility and the 

process through which that institution would have to 

either transition the program to being a approved prison 

education program or, wind the program down. If the 

program, if the program, if the institution did not want 

to, did not no longer wanted to participate in the Title 

IV programs. 

MS. MCARDLE: No further comments. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Okay, so I'd like to take a 

temperature check on that again, there were no thumbs 

down last time, but you know, if we could do a 

temperature check by raising your hand and letting us 

know why your thumbs down. 

MS. MCARDLE: I see no hands. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Okay. I think Vanessa will 

add a comment bubble. Okay, so if we could scroll back up 

to the best interest section, Vanessa, I think that we 

that the last remaining section is the best interest to 

discuss and what I've done here, I've tried to add 

Belinda's comments, the document that you sent last night 

at 6, 6:18 to the subcommittee I've gone through during 

lunch and I've tried to add all of your comments 

highlighted in blue if there is one missing, let us know, 

I have a document, Vanessa has the document, we can throw 

it in there in real time. The only one I wasn't sure if 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

10 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

it was yours was the “May” “Must”. Vanessa, can you 

scroll up a little bit? Is that yours Belinda, the “May” 

“Must”? Okay, alright, okay, so before we dive in, I do 

have something I wanted to say to the subcommittee. So we 

discussed, we discussed during the last subcommittee 

meeting and we have sought to clarify, define and measure 

the specific requirements in the law related to how the 

Departments of Corrections and the Bureau of Prison 

assess whether a program is serving the best interests of 

students. This is both because we know this will be a new 

role for corrections officials who haven't typically been 

required to measure all of the all of these metrics. And 

because we share concern of many of the subcommittee 

members about placing too much authority with the 

Department of Corrections or Bureau of Prisons, whose 

whose responsibilities go far beyond the educational 

needs of incarcerated students. So we have a lot of 

comment bubbles in the documents that that the Department 

has put in for more feedback from the subcommittee. And I 

think we should probably just kind of go indicator by 

indicator and talk about each of them. So for the first 

metrics we're talking about the enrollment post student's 

enrollment post-release, and I think we have some comment 

bubbles here, so for the subcommittee members, we 

continue to invite research and input about these metrics 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

11 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

to ensure a floor that ensures a program is operating in 

the best interests of students where research exists 

about the typical outcomes of prison education programs 

or appropriate levels of quality. And we would appreciate 

submissions of the information from subcommittee members, 

particularly as it relates to the metrics proposed to 

allow the DOCs or the BOPs to define the stakeholder to 

define with stakeholder input. So that was pretty, I know 

we've already received some data. I think Dr. McTier 

actually sent in some research about the benefits of 

prison education programs, previously. And I think that 

was posted to our website. And so for the first 

indicator, we hope to remove the burden of calculating 

this first indicator from institutions and instead 

calculate it, the Department of Education would calculate 

it and provide provide it back to institutions and 

oversight entities. The Department proposes to allow 

oversight entities in consultation with incarcerated 

individuals and their advocates and accrediting agencies 

to determine what the what an appropriate enrollment 

level is to ensure the program meets the best interests 

of students. And so I will pause there and open the floor 

up for conversation on the first best interest indicator. 

So that's, I think that's 1 now, so it's A 1. 

MS. MCARDLE: I see no hands. Oh wait, 
 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

12 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

there's Stan, Stan? 

DR. ANDRISSE: Maybe I missed it, but was 

what was the comment on the “May” “Must”? So changing 

“Must” to “May”. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Yeah, sorry, I have two 

different screens open, I apologize, I didn't, I totally 

missed that, yes, “May”, “Must”. I missed that I, yeah. 

Thanks for thanks for bringing that up, Stan. So Belinda, 

would you be able to describe describe the “May” “Must” 

before we move on to enrollment post-release? 

MS. WHEELER: Thank you. This was more of a 

point of clarification here, looking at the FAFSA 

Simplification Act and all the, you know, requirements in 

the act it says “May” require, you know, things such as, 

you know, employment rates, recidivism and things of that 

nature in the in the FAFSA Simplification Act and then in 

the language that we have here as possible, amendatory 

language before these kind of sub points here we've got 

the the use of the word “Must” here as supposed to “May”. 

And I just wanted clarification, you know, with regards 

to that because, you know, and I'm not a legal person, 

but it seems that “May” seems quite different than than 

the “Must”. And I just wanted kind of clarification on 

that before we even got to any of the other kind of 

bullet points there. Because to depending on the “May” 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

13 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

“Must” situation, it could potentially have further 

ramifications for those other kind of bullet points 

there. So just kind of want to clarify that place. 

MS. MCARDLE: Soren? 

MR. LAGAARD: Thank you so much, yeah, 

Belinda. You're absolutely right, there is a big 

difference between “May” and “Must”. “May” is, you know, 

permissive optional, whereas “Must” is compulsory. And so 

our determination there would be that an oversight entity 

must include all of these things that we've listed there. 

MS. MCARDLE: Stan. 

DR. ANDRISSE: Yes, thank you for clarifying 

that, and That is exactly Why we want to remain with the 

language that was proposed in the bill, which was “May”. 

I think that would offer more opportunity to programs 

looking to start up if that were “May” as opposed to 

“Must”. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Vanessa, can you put a 

comment bubble into yeah say that there's a 

recommendation to revert the “Must” to a “May”. 

MS. MCARDLE: Dr. McTier? 

DR. ANDRISSE: To revert back to “May”. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Yes. 

MS. MCARDLE: Dr. McTier? 

DR. MCTIER: Hey, yes, so I agree with Stan 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

14 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

in terms of the “May” “Must”. So this this might be 

because I was not here earlier, but did we ever clarify 

the oversight entity information? And so who's that 

oversight entity that's going to be upholding this 

particular section? 

DR. ANDRISSE: It was said that we would get 

back to that. Is is what we said at the beginning of the 

meeting. 

DR. MCTIER: So until we establish the 

oversight entity, I think, that's going to dictate how 

the rest of this plays out, and so I would like to have 

that conversation about the oversight entity piece, 

especially because we were all struggling with that, that 

change yesterday with what we originally had and now it 

was removed. And I'm still unclear on where that where we 

stand on that component. So. And this is and I believe 

this is one of the areas where we had a lot of pushback 

for the Department of Education. So we really want I I 

really want to make sure that's specified and cleared up 

before we move on. 

MS. MCARDLE: Stan? Stan, I think you're on 

mute. 

DR. ANDRISSE: Sorry about that. I was just 

saying, yes, I would agree. This is where some of that 

language was included. So if if added above and if we 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

15 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

have that discussion, you know there wouldn't need, there 

wouldn't be the need to add it here because it would 

already be added in the in the definition of oversight, 

what the oversight entity was. So I would agree. I think 

we need to have that conversation because it so heavily 

weighs into all of the best interest conversation that 

we're looking to get into. 

MS. MCARDLE: Aaron? 

MR. WASHINGTON: Stan, I received your 

recommendation for the definition of oversight entity, 

and I have put it into this, pasted it into this 

document. I'd like to get feedback from the first, I want 

to ask Belinda, I want to go back to the first part, 

Belinda, are you, what was your position? Would you like 

to Department to revert back to the “May”? Or how what 

are your feelings about the “May” to a “Must”? Was it 

just for clarification or did you want your name also 

added to Stan and Dr. McTier's request to change the Must 

to May? 

MS. WHEELER: I think it has to. I support 

the the “May” here. And if it goes to the “Must”, I'm not 

sure, I'm not sure why would be why we would be going to 

the “Must” when the, you know, I certainly understand. 

Like again, if we're thinking of equity, inclusivity at 

this point, I'm saying that yes, with with the “May” 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

16 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

going back to the “May” because I don't see an angle with 

how the “Must” would be more inclusive of students. But 

again, I reserve the right to change on that. But at this 

point, it seems a little unclear to me why we would be 

going with “Must”. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you. And I wanted to 

just get the entire committee's feedback on going back to 

the definition of an oversight entity. We do have until 

three o'clock to discuss the best interest piece. I was 

hoping that tomorrow we could kind of take the full day 

to go back through the entire package in order to try and 

get as few recommendations as possible, hopefully one. So 

I did want to get through, get through the best interest 

discussion by three o'clock today. But if, I wanted to 

get feedback from other subcommittee members on returning 

to the discussion of oversight entity before we before we 

move from the best interest piece because I know Belinda 

had a lot of, not a lot, but, you know, really, really 

pointed comments in this section that we've added and we 

want to make sure that we have enough time to hear 

Belinda's thoughts and people who assisted Belinda with 

this language, their thoughts on this. And so I will 

pause there and hear what the rest of the subcommittee I 

want to hear. I'd like to hear from other subcommittee 

members if we want to table this conversation and go back 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

17 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

to talk more about the oversight entity definition. 

MS. MCARDLE: Terrell. 

MR. BLOUNT: Thank you. My question Aaron is 

the definition of oversight entity what it could be for 

PEPs or the definition that we create is what it needs to 

be or should yeah what it needs to be? Or is it what it 

could be? 

MR. WASHINGTON: So we haven't had we 

haven't discussed well, I can't remember when I received 

Stanley's proposed definition Stan's sorry proposed 

definition of the addition to the definition of an 

oversight entity. But the Department hasn't had a chance 

to go back and discuss it internally at. And again, I 

know this is the subcommittee's recommendation, but I am 

here to hopefully let you all know the Department does 

have a vote at the main table and I am here to let you 

know what the Department can implement and within the 

statutory framework. So when the recommendation is made 

to the main committee, there is no hopefully there are 

very few surprises, at least from the federal negotiators 

perspective. So we haven't had a chance to talk about 

that decision yet, but we can discuss we can at least 

allow Stanley to explain it here and the rationale and 

add anything else he would like to add. 

MR. BLOUNT: Okay, if I could really quickly 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

before it looks like Stan is next to speak, I think 

ideally as other subcommittee members have mentioned, the 

oversight entity should include directly impacted people, 

both incarcerated and formerly incarcerated. I think 

incarcerated students should have some input on the 

colleges or programs that they're being presented with, 

and that can kind of, you know, avoid any of the other 

protections that we're thinking about. And then also 

other stakeholder partners in the community that are 

working in the best interests of directly impacted 

people. I think when it's a more of a a group 

conversation, it will then alleviate the concern of many 

people, which is that the Department of Corrections will 

be the sole, you know, entity that's making those 

decisions. And I think just really quickly, currently, it 

that oversight entity, although people probably aren't 

using that terminology, I think it varies from state to 

state. I think some states the oversight entity is only 

the Department of Corrections, and they make the 

decisions on which colleges they, you know, quote unquote 

partner with or allowed to operate in the facilities. And 

then in other states, there's consortiums where they have 

MOUs in place, where the colleges that already teach in 

prison, along with correction, the correction education 

leadership make decisions on new programs that are 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

19 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

attempting to to teach in those facilities so the 

oversight entity can be consortiums or, you know, other 

options, of course. But I just wanted to share that that 

last piece. 

MR. WASHINGTON: If I could respond really 

quickly. The the the oversight entity is, trying to find 

it in the statutory text, but the oversight entity is 

defined and we decided to say oversight entity only 

because it was shorthand for something that's already 

described in the statute. And so the statute says that it 

will be the state Departments of Corrections, the Bureau 

of Prisons or other entity that has oversight authority 

over the facility. And so that that's really what we were 

saying it was we weren't changing the definition of who 

makes that determination. What we were trying to do is 

just provide shorthand so we didn't continue to repeat a 

very long sentence over and over again in the 

regulations. And I'll pause there. I see Soren's hand is 

up. 

MR. LAGAARD: Thanks, Aaron. Yeah, and I 

think you've covered exactly what we were going to say 

that this was, you know, we were looking at the reg, we 

were trying to make the reg more accessible, having a 

repeated phrase that's twenty one words long come into 

very different parts of the reg was was a lot to read and 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

20 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

to to understand. And so as part of our way of trying to 

make the reg more accessible, we just simply took the 

word for word definition from the statute and 

consolidated it down to the concept of oversight entity, 

which, you know, word for word the same. So really, all 

this was, this was part of our reorganization was just an 

attempt to make this this regulation more accessible and 

more understandable. And, you know, be a way that we can 

then get across our our point, our what, what our 

requirements are more clearly. 

MS. MCARDLE: Stan. 

DR. ANDRISSE: Thank you, Soren and Aaron 

and Terrell. So, you know, I think we just asked the 

committee whether, you know, take a quick check on 

whether we want to go back. You know, for me, everything, 

I'm going to be thumbs down on all of this because we 

need to have that conversation about oversight. And so 

the addition that I proposed that I sent this morning 

shortly before the start of our session is does not 

change the statutory wording of the DOC and BOP being the 

entity. I mean, I would, as Dr. McTier mentioned, I think 

we need to go back to that conversation, and I can 

certainly explain just how you know what I was proposing 

is in addition to that definition. In that way, it would 

also shorten this text because you are adding in some of 
 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

21 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

the stuff that we are mentioning, like in that first 

point. You mentioned that, you know, to to to be in 

contact with stakeholders. If we go back and revisit and 

add the additions to the definition that I propose, then 

you know, we don't have to add that additional text. So 

you shorten the text and accomplish what Soren is 

mentioning. So I think that we should just take a check 

and see if the committee wants to go back and have that 

quick discussion. 

MR. WASHINGTON: I agree, Stan. If anybody 

so, if there's any objection please raise your hand and 

we will continue on with the best interest discussion. If 

there's no objection we will go back to the oversight 

entity definition and allow Stan to further detail his 

proposal. I just want to tell everybody to keep in mind 

that we do have a lot of comments in the best interest 

section that we like to get to, not only from the 

Department, but also Belinda. So with that said, Sophia, 

do we see any there? 

MS. MCARDLE: I see, I see Belinda. Belinda. 

MS. WHEELER: It's the English major in me 

when we truncate things to it and then we then have the 

definition up there, we need to make sure that the 

definition and by by placing it there. I'm sorry, but it 

has to be, you know, and I'm not sorry. I shouldn't say 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

22 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

sorry, it has to go back. We need to clarify what this 

“it” is. As colleagues have mentioned, I understand that 

it's been truncated, but we've got to clarify that before 

we then go further into the document. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Okay, so you're proposing 

to go back to the definition as well. Okay. Alright. Just 

making sure. Okay, so Vanessa, if you wouldn't mind 

scrolling up to let's see. Yes, six, sixty eight point. I 

think, oh, there you go. Yeah, they are. Alright, so I 

added, I'm sorry, I've added Stanley's, Stan's, I've 

added Stan's recommendation here in the blue comment 

bubble, and so I'll open up the floor to Stan to talk 

more about it. 

DR. ANDRISSE: So is it, I can't, is it 

highlighted on the screen for others to see? 

MR. WASHINGTON: It's in blue? 

DR. ANDRISSE: It's not fully expanded on my 

screen. Maybe that's just my screen. 

MR. WASHINGTON: I don't think Vanessa can 

zoom in anymore. 

DR. ANDRISSE: Well, I can I can just read 

it from what I had. I was just hoping for others to be 

able to read it. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Can people see, before you 

go, the people see the blue? I feel I think Vanessa is 
 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

23 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

trying to do is actually keep the current definition in 

frame. 

DR. MCTIER: I can see the see it all the 

way from 11/9 and then it ends with “existing PEPs”. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. 

DR. ANDRISSE: Okay, now now I see it, so 

thank you. Sorry about that. So just to this, this 

particular text, you know, copying and pasted what to Dr. 

McTier had mentioned before with a few additions. So, you 

know, I propose to add a number three to the definition 

and for it to say, “The above mentioned entities in one 

and two will be advised by an advisory committee made up 

of at least one of each of the following higher education 

institutions accrediting institutions, Board of Regents, 

higher education in prison programs, formerly 

incarcerated individuals and or groups that represent 

them, and a community based organization focused on 

reentry.” And furthermore, I propose that, ”The advisory 

committee will provide expert advice and recommendations 

on decisions such as PEP approval, denial and appeals”. 

And I think to add a little bit of additional strength 

behind the advisory committee, I was additionally 

proposing that if the above entities in (1) or (2)make a 

decision that is outside of the recommendation of the 

advisory committee, that there should be some that that 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

24 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

it may jeopardize the entity's ability for the Department 

to approve any of its existing PEPs. So to further talk a 

little bit more about that last piece, specifically, as 

Terrell mentioned, states such as New Jersey, New York, 

Kansas, Georgia have these coalitions in place that are 

higher ed in prison coalitions that kind of partner with 

each other. There are different colleges and universities 

that have prison education programs, and they bring 

they've brought together a number of different 

stakeholders at the table, and they help advise the DOC. 

As Terrell was mentioning, many of these have MOUs in 

place with the DOC, where the DOC is leaning on their 

expertise, since the DOC may not be as expert in some of 

these topics to help them make decisions. So I think with 

the way the text 

MS. MCARDLE: Thirty seconds. 

DR. ANDRISSE: is this this would just be an 

addition, that it's still the decision of the DOC or the 

BOP, but they're advised by this particular advisory 

committee on on the on the things that are mentioned in 

the in the text. 

MR. WASHINGTON: And I think, you know what 

Stan, because this is your recommendation, I want you to 

I know we were doing a three minute thing, but I please 

continue if you if you know. 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

25 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

DR. ANDRISSE: That, I mean, I can answer 

questions or thoughts from that, but I can stop there. 

MS. MCARDLE: Dave? 

MR. MUSSER: So, Stan, I have just a few 

operational questions about how this would actually work 

in practice. So let's take an example of a case where a 

prison, a school wants to start a prison education 

program and they want to bring it to a correctional 

agency or the Federal Bureau of Prisons, whichever it may 

be. And your language includes a “must” that it must 

include at least one of the individuals from all of these 

groups. What happens if one of those groups can't be 

represented? Does that mean they simply can't apply for 

the program? 

DR. ANDRISSE: Yes, so that is something 

that I am open to discussion about, and I agree that, you 

know, just just the same way we were discussing “May” or 

“Must” in the in the other part. You know, I think that, 

the different players that are asked to be involved are 

already involved. The only players that have not that are 

not involved already are formerly incarcerated people. So 

my concern with changing that would be if we add “May” 

the party that always gets left out will be the formerly 

incarcerated people. 

MS. MCARDLE: Dr. McTier? 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

DR. MCTIER: So, Stan, I hear you and 

thinking about the logistical aspect based off what David 

just asked. I am also curious as to so what I do think 

that there needs to be a committee in place. Which is 

what you know, I recommended earlier on. And now I think, 

the issue that I will probably run into is, again, what 

David brought up is if one of those individuals choose 

not to participate, then there's no higher education 

being offered at all. And so for me, I would much rather 

have education at least be offered. And so I just don't 

want this to to really push out potential programs just 

because they can't mark or check all the boxes. And for 

me, that that is a concern, but then I hear the the other 

side of me here's the who will be left out, which would 

be the students, and it's often they are excluded. I feel 

like right now walking on that tightrope, I don't know 

exactly what to do. It's almost like damned if you do, 

damned if you don't. But again, saying that “must”, I 

feel a lot of programs are not going to apply and I don't 

know if I necessarily agree 100%. But I don't I don't 

disagree but I don't 100% agree, either. 

DR. ANDRISSE: If I might add to that, I 

mean, would it be okay for me to? 

MS. MCARDLE: Yes, go ahead. We did have 

Terrell, Terrell had something to say as well. I'm not 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

27 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

sure did you want to respond? 

DR. ANDRISSE: Terrell, you can go. 

MR. BLOUNT: Okay, thank you. Yeah. Just 

really briefly, I do think it is mandatory that directly 

impacted people are part of it. We cannot continue to 

make regulations and laws and decisions for a population 

and someone from that group not be a part of it like that 

cannot be so to the college who is in X state that may 

not have any college in prison programs already, there is 

a handful of them and they're entering this work for the 

very first time. You should be not just focused solely on 

creating your program, but seeking programs that have, 

you know, been, I guess, implementing best practices or 

promising practices, doing your research and literature 

because this is shaping to, for better or for worse being 

a field. And there's no excuse to not seek out or invite 

formerly incarcerated people, no matter if you don't have 

any in your state, there's organizations that exist where 

you can reach out to individuals. So it's not. I don't 

believe it's an excuse for a program to say, oh, we don't 

know anyone who has graduated from a college inprison 

program or has gone to prison and graduated, did all of 

that education on the outside, it's not an excuse to not 

include at least one person to be a part of that group. 

DR. ANDRISSE: And if I might add to that, I 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

28 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

agree 100% with Terrell. You know this, you know, getting 

one formerly incarcerated person, if that's a challenge, 

then you may you may not that may say something else 

about. 

MR. BLOUNT: You don't need to be in this 

work. You can't find one person who has been to prison 

and has graduated from college and is immersed in this 

work, not just anybody who graduated and they're not even 

involved in this work. We're talking about so many people 

that have come home and are doing justice and education 

work. It's not an excuse and those individuals who are 

doing the work, we will intentionally mentor and bring on 

individuals, create leaders that can fully participate in 

these spaces. But to those colleagues, I don't feel sorry 

if you are not making any attempts whatsoever to locate 

someone. 

DR. ANDRISSE: And if I might add the other 

piece is that this is looking to be it's not necessarily 

it wouldn't be on you, Dr. McTier, to put this together. 

This is something that the DOC should put together. So 

the DOC needs to put together this advisory committee to 

help them with the decision making of you coming into 

their institution. 

MS. MCARDLE: Marisa. 

MS. BRITTON-BOSTWICK: So I think the 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

29 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

incarcerated individual is so important and being from a 

very small rural state off the top of my head, I can 

think of two incarcerated individuals that we would love 

to have on this advisory board, and I think it needs to 

be in there. And I think it motivates the incarcerated 

individuals that we already have in our facilities to do 

these programs and want to be part of it. And I think 

that's so crucial and I think it needs to be in there. 

MS. MCARDLE: Dr. McTier. 

DR. MCTIER: So so that's for the students, 

and so I think we understand and I do agree that I do 

believe the students need to be at the table. Thinking 

about all the other entities within that we're 

recommending or requesting be at that table. We're making 

it mandatory that those individuals also because I hear 

the student aspect and I 100% agree, but then I'm 

thinking about the higher education institutions, the 

accrediting agencies, board of regents, all of those 

particular individuals also weighing in. And then the DOC 

having to go get all of those, you know, connect those 

dots. Correct me, if I'm wrong, the DOC is not in 

education, and so I don't even know if they would know 

where to start to even make those connections for like 

accredited accrediting agencies, board of regents, et 

cetera. So I don't know. I'm just trying to I'm trying to 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

30 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

make sure that we are looking at it from all angles 

before we just say, yes, this is what we're going to do, 

“Must”. And so we I agree with the student aspect that 

they need to be at the table. I am on board with that. 

The other piece of that is you're saying “Must” and so 

we're listing all of these other agencies. That's the 

part where I'm also kind of like we're relying heavily on 

the DOC to do all of that and I'm a little shaky on it. 

DR. ANDRISSE: So if I might. 

MS. MCARDLE: I don't know if Marisa had 

something to add before you responded, Stan. 

MS. BRITTON-BOSTWICK: Sorry, Stan, I do 

have one thing to add. My main point before was that you 

can find incarcerated individuals. I mean, that's not 

even possible that you couldn't find them in a state, 

especially in a lower population state, so I just wanted 

to get that across. But also, I think that this does need 

to fall on Department of Corrections in some form and if 

it doesn't, it's going to be forgotten. And I I think 

that could be very dangerous because I I think people 

could really fall between the cracks. Thank you. 

MS. MCARDLE: Stan. 

DR. ANDRISSE: So thank you, I'm open to 

discussing some of those other players, particularly, of 

course, focusing that, as we mentioned, that formerly 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

31 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

incarcerated people be part of it. The players such as, 

you know, it goes back to a question that I asked Aaron, 

I think back in October is what did we envision would be 

this how one of these things would get started, right? So 

is it the DOC that’s starting it? Is it a university 

that's starting it, that comes and approaches the DOC? Is 

it a community organization that, who is the start of it, 

right? So let's say there's a state that doesn't have one 

started yet, and we regardless of who starts it? Right? 

The university needs to be in the conversation already 

because they're going to be in the conversation. If it's 

the first program, then they're in the conversation 

already. They are that first program. So, you know, once 

that conversation gets started, the university is already 

there. The accrediting agency is already part of this 

conversation. It already needs to be part of what 

accepts, you know, the program. Its inclusion in other 

parts of the language. So I mean, those players are there 

because they would be helpful to assisting the DOC in 

areas that they may not be familiar in and that we're 

asking the DOC to do, you know, the Board of Regents, 

that was something that is part of the list of states 

that I that I listed that have entities like this in 

place. They have representation from the Board of Regents 

on there. That's a new player that's not really already 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

32 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

part of it, but can come in and valuable in different 

valuable places. The community based organization is 

something that you know is lacking, and Terrell and 

Belinda can maybe speak to this on how there's been so 

many instances of people leaving prison education 

programs and just being thrown out into the wild, per se, 

and not being guided into how to get back into school. 

So, I mean, just having those entities in place and I 

mean, we're asking them to do other things as well. And 

so I think this is will help in these other best practice 

issues and just in a number of different places. But 

again, I am open to thinking about, you know, you know, 

some of those other stakeholders, but certainly the 

formerly incarcerated stakeholders, you know, need to be 

part of it. 

MS. MCARDLE: Dr. McTier. 

DR. MCTIER: Was Dr. Paccione, I saw her 

hand first. So did she want to speak before I did? 

MS. MCARDLE: I did not see her hand, but 

yes, go ahead Dr. Paccione if you were first. 

DR. PACCIONE: Yeah, thank you very much and 

thank you, Dr. McTier. And I agree completely with what 

Dr. McTier's intention making sure that we have the 

formerly incarcerated. With the “Must” is also a little 

bit tight for me. And then and then there's it feels like 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

33 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

there's a bit of redundancy if we're going to have the 

higher ed institutions and the Board of Regents. That 

could be a redundancy. In Colorado, we only have one 

Board of Regents, and that's where the University of 

Colorado system. I don't know if other states are 

similar, so board of trustees would be maybe more 

inclusive. So that would include other of our systems and 

perhaps we may want to even include or their designee. So 

our board of trustees, that's all volunteer and we we ask 

a lot of them already, so maybe their designee could be 

in there. And then just deciding whether there's a 

redundancy between having the institution and and a board 

member. So those are the comments I want to make. Thank 

you. 

MS. MCARDLE: Thank you. Now, Dr. McTier and 

then Marisa. 

DR. MCTIER: So I wrote that same thing down 

about not every institution has or every state has a 

board of regents, but also with higher education in 

prison programs starting, not all Board of Regents and 

Board of Trustees actually agree with the establishment 

of higher education in prison programs. And so I think 

it's also important that that “Must” is very concerning 

for me because of those those nuances that exist. We 

don't know what relationships or partnerships exist 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

34 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

outside of the institution. Right. And many of the boards 

are made up of community members. And so I just want us 

to consider at that point. The other piece that I was 

going to add as I'm thinking through this now with this, 

this addition is, alright, say we add all of these 

elements. There's no time frame. So we know that 

sometimes the DOC moves extremely slow with with things 

and so requiring them to get all of these entities in 

place. If I'm submitting an application and now I got to 

wait until they decide to move the ball and they can just 

say, hey, we reached out and we're still waiting. That 

could take months and possibly years for this program to 

get up and running. So again, my concern is with this, 

“Must” I hear that we do need students at the table. I 

think we're all in agreement with that. But again, some 

of these other key players now adding in this time frame 

and thinking about what David talked about is this 

process. I feel now we're going to we're just now we're 

getting into the weeds. And so I don't want to get into 

the weeds. I do think we need to recommend that, you 

know, these people be at the table. At what process, I 

don't know. And now I feel like now we're diving deeper 

and getting deeper than we necessarily need to be, but I 

do think that the DOC, we're giving all of this and 

placing all of this on the DOC to handle an application 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

35 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

when they might not even want the program to be there. I 

don't know. 

MS. MCARDLE: Marisa. 

MS. BRITTON-BOSTWICK: I just have a couple 

of questions that I need people's expert advice on from 

the subcommittee. Can there be some of these entities 

that are “Must” and some that are “May”? And also in a 

small state like ours, and I mean, I have to tell you, 

Stan and Dr. McTier and Terrell, I'm so impressed because 

in smaller states, we don't have these robust community 

based organizations for reentry. And in some smaller 

states, they don't even really exist. And so that really 

concerns me who we build this bridge with on the way out, 

and I don't want it to be just something that's written 

down as a community based organization. If we could work 

on some wording on exactly what that would look like in 

smaller states where it's not so robust. Thank you. 

MS. MCARDLE: Stan. 

DR. ANDRISSE: So thank you, Marisa, and Dr. 

McTier. I would I would be for, you know, working through 

what should be “May” and what should be “Must”. Again, 

you know, pointing out that I think the formerly 

incarcerated person or groups should be a “Must”. And you 

know, back to I mean, to to the I think, you know, the 

“May” or “Must” could solve that issue, but I think that 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

36 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

you personally, if you don't have that connection, it's 

going to cause issues to not have a reentry type of 

organization that are partnering and I mean, we could 

even expand it or put some type of language in that says 

that it doesn't have to be an entity from your state, 

particularly in that area. It can be a national 

organization that that works on that. And this is, you 

know, this is they're not going to be providing services 

per se. This is just to advise. So it's not saying that 

they're going to be providing services. 

MS. MCARDLE: Belinda. 

MS. WHEELER: Thank you very much. I'm just 

going to really briefly wear two hats here, if I can. In 

my past experience, if it wasn't for a community based 

partner and my brother, Jay Holder and Healthy Routines 

when I was at Claflin University, we never would have had 

the synergy that we had. Like Healthy Routines, the 

community partner brought my institution, Claflin 

University, to the table with Corrections and we had this 

three based, you know, kind of partnership. And Jay, my 

brother, you know, brought Stanley in and, you know, it 

worked beautifully. So I've had the advantage of seeing 

how an organic process has worked really well. So in a 

lot of ways, I see a lot of value to, you know, to what 

Stan is saying here, wearing my other hat with Vera where 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

37 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

I'm now, you know, very happily placed. I've seen a lot 

of this organic kind of side of things, and I've also 

seen some things that weren't, you know, as didn't go 

perhaps as well, whether it's, you know, current current 

educational institutions in the prison education space or 

those that are thinking of going into this space. I do 

definitely see myself aligning a little bit like 

definitely understanding that, yes, we need to define 

this, and I very much hope that maybe tonight we can go 

backwards and forwards via email, perhaps with the 

subcommittee to kind of get something down for like that 

recommendation for tomorrow. Perhaps I see myself perhaps 

a little bit more aligned with Dr. McTier and Angie with 

SHEEO in the sense of perhaps a hey “May” here again just 

for that more organic. But I can also see how, you know, 

some people would definitely I see merit in perhaps, you 

know, some “Must” there too. So I would definitely love 

the opportunity with my colleagues to kind of, you know, 

think a little bit more about this and perhaps we can in 

an email exchange if that's permissible to the 

subcommittee. Kind of go backwards and forwards on this 

and perhaps have something, you know for the morning 

where we've got a little bit this there. That's not to 

silence the conversations that we're having now. I think 

that these are really important. Yeah, that's it for me. 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

38 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

Thank you. 

MS. MCARDLE: Soren. 

MR. LAGAARD: And Belinda, exactly what 

you're saying now. I think you the Department really 

appreciates all this feedback that we're hearing, and I 

think we want to evaluate some of the legal and policy 

implications tonight. And then we would love to also get 

back to this this subcommittee tomorrow morning. 

MS. MCARDLE: Angie, is your hands still up? 

Alright, Stan? 

DR. ANDRISSE: I mean, it sounds like we are 

mostly I mean, I haven't heard an opposition to saying 

“Must” for the formerly incarcerated person or group. 

There has been some, you know, you know, consideration 

around saying “May” for the other groups. But I mean, it 

sounds like we are all in agreement with “Must” for 

formerly incarcerated persons or groups. So I mean, I 

would propose to change it to just say that is the one 

group that is “Must” and then the other groups could be 

“May”. 

MS. MCARDLE: Dr. McTier. 

DR. MCTIER: I would probably add that with 

the student, there needs to be maybe it established, 

maybe the higher education program would need to also be 

“Must”. So that way that there's that level of expertise 
 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

39 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

that exists with the application process and that 

knowledge of the educational program that's going to be 

established along with that student voice there. And so I 

do think that while we bring the student to that “Must”, 

we might need to bring the the higher education 

institution to that table that “Must” as well. And then 

the others could potentially be “May”, depending on if 

their available available or if they're even in existence 

at that the table or in that state. 

MS. MCARDLE: Marisa? 

MS. BRITTON-BOSTWICK: Okay, I could be 

missing something here. But in the entity, the 

corrections education would also be a “Must”, would that 

be right? 

MS. MCARDLE: Dr. McTier, I think that was 

to you. 

DR. MCTIER: Oh yeah, whoever the yeah. I 

would say the definitely the the individual at the prison 

is is. 

MS. BRITTON-BOSTWICK: Or at the DOC level? 

DR. MCTIER: Yeah, at the DOC level and then 

the person, the institution that's putting in the 

application, I think would need to be at that table as 

well. 

MS. BRITTON-BOSTWICK: Yeah. 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

40 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

MS. MCARDLE: Marisa, is your hand, oh, 

okay, Stan? 

DR. ANDRISSE: I mean, I think I mean, there 

would need to be you know, I mean, the consideration of I 

mean, the way that I was thinking of it is that this will 

be a board of sort. I mean, we don't have to define a 

time that they meet and that nature. But you know, for 

instance, the prison education person is a higher 

education person. And so those kind of are both, you 

know, could satisfy both. But you know, I would just 

additionally add the thinking of if this were an advisory 

group, you know what would be the concern about the 

actual entity that may be applying or that is part of an 

appeal? You know, maybe that person would need to know if 

that would be a conflict of interest within within that 

within that process. 

MS. MCARDLE: Marisa? 

MS. BRITTON-BOSTWICK: So one additional 

thing, I think this needs to be very streamlined and very 

clear because a lot of hands get in the cookie jar and 

then what then what we're really trying to do is lost. 

And that would be my main concern that we don't have so 

many people in there. And then when we do, if we do, it's 

very defined. That would be my main thing to say, so 

thank you. 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

41 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

MS. MCARDLE: I see no other hands, Aaron? 

MR. WASHINGTON: Oh, yeah, I think we did 

get a question. So Stan, can you just expand on how this 

will work for the Bureau of Prisons? Like how this 

framework will work for the Bureau of Prisons? 

DR. ANDRISSE: So I think if we don't have 

it be a restriction of that, the entity has to be in that 

state. I mean, so for the Bureau of Prisons, they can 

look nationally to meet these requirements. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Okay. 

MS. MCARDLE: I believe Dave was next, and 

then Angie and then Marisa. 

MR. MUSSER: Another sort of operational 

question for you. Did you have in mind that the 

Department would essentially check to be sure that the 

that the institution identified the advisory committee 

and expressed who was representing which roles? Is that 

sort of what you had in mind for what what we would do to 

approve a program on this basis? 

DR. ANDRISSE: Yeah, so that the Department 

would would ask that DOC have this in place. So when when 

a program is looked to be approved to be let into a 

correctional facility and and the DCO puts together the 

application to send to the Department, the Department 

would need to check off and say that do you have the 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

42 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

advisory was the advisory committee part of this 

decision? And if they didn't have that, then that would, 

you know, they would have to have an advisory committee 

in place. 

MR. MUSSER: Alright, thanks. 

MS. MCARDLE: Angie? 

DR. PACCIONE: Yeah, thanks, and you know, I 

think it could be in the Department in consultation with 

the SHEEO because we convene, we work with all of the 

folks essentially that are on that list in terms of the 

advisory committee. So to make it easier to actually 

populate this advisory committee, you know, the SHEEO 

works with the institutions of higher ed, we work with 

the board of trustees, we work with the higher ed and 

prison programs. And so so, you know, to make it easier 

to actually populate this advisory committee, maybe we 

say, you know, the Department of Corrections or the board 

in consultation with the the SHEEO, forms this committee 

something, something to that effect. 

MS. MCARDLE: Marisa. 

MS. BRITTON-BOSTWICK: So just to be clear, 

I think Stan said this before, but if we couldn't find a 

community based organization within a small rural state, 

we could have someone national on there that we contract 

with or they could be on our advisory board. It wouldn't 
1 

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

43 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

have to be. Not everyone on the “Must” or “May” list 

would have to be in your state. Is that correct? 

DR. ANDRISSE: I would say if it's not, I 

mean, if we don't add into the language that it needs to 

be state or, you know, if we don't have that to the 

language, then yes, they would be free to do it. I think, 

I mean, that goes back to that question of trying to add 

additional clarification, sometimes add just more 

complication. So I mean, not not saying it says that, 

yes, you could you could look in your state or 

nationally. 

MS. MCARDLE: I see no other hands at the 

moment. Aaron? 

MR. WASHINGTON: Okay. I think I think we 

can conclude this conversation and go back to the best 

interest piece. I think we can still discuss the best 

interest in in the context of the way the Department has 

proposed now. Also, I mean, we, you know, in the context 

of how Stan has it defined here, you know, like probably 

just remove the, you know, input from relevant 

stakeholders and just keep the keep with the definition 

of oversight authorities, so at least we can talk about 

each of the indicators. And people's thoughts on the 

indicators just in general, you know, as opposed to 

coming to a determination today, whether we're going to 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

44 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

go with the oversight entity as it's defined in yellow or 

the oversight entity as defined in yellow and with a with 

addition to the blue. And I did hear that we're going to 

the subcommittee is going to be emailing back and forth 

tonight to really determine which are a “Must”, which are 

a “May” and provide a Department either tonight or 

tomorrow with, like the final proposal. So hopefully we 

can move to the best interest piece at least and talk 

about those. Alright, so for enrollment post-release, I 

wanted to open up the table to discussion on this. I 

think there is there's one, there's there's some there's 

there's a question that we did have, though. So if we 

were to define it as whether the rate of confinement 

corresponding to visible continuing their education postrelease as determined by the percentage of students who 

reenrolled in higher education reported by the Department 

of Education. So we would report that to the Bureau of 

Prisons, the State Department of Corrections, or whatever 

oversight entity that we ultimately decide is how we 

define define that meets the thresholds established by 

the oversight entity with input from relevant 

stakeholders, which must include incarcerated students, 

formerly incarcerated students, organizations 

representing incarcerated students and accrediting 

agencies. And the Department is currently exploring 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

45 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

feasibility of ensuring that the Department can calculate 

this data. And one challenge will be the need for 

additional reporting of data on Pell recipients who were 

later released from a facility. So we do invite feedback 

on that, specifically how your ideas on how the 

Department could get the release date of and confined or 

incarcerated individual that was enrolled in a prison 

education program. 

MS. MCARDLE: Oh, Dave, I'm sorry, I was on 

mute. Dave? 

MR. MUSSER: No problem. So, yeah, this this 

question is. I think it's directed both at Dr. McTier and 

Marisa, and it's it's really about do do you think it's 

possible for us to create a reporting mechanism given all 

of the the laws that are in place, which I personally am 

not familiar with privacy laws, other kinds of 

considerations for incarcerated individuals to for the 

for the correctional agency to provide to the Department 

information about whether a Pell recipient has been 

released over a particular time frame? Because that is 

what the Department would need in order to perform this 

calculation itself. We really, without having information 

about who is released, the what we would be able to 

report is of much less value because it's of the entire 

population of incarcerated individuals, including those 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

46 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

who don't have an opportunity to continue their education 

post-release. 

MS. MCARDLE: Marisa. 

MS. BRITTON-BOSTWICK: Would it only be data 

if if they were released or if they moved into a career 

or if they moved into a postsecondary? I mean, it's easy 

to tell who's released, but it's hard to tell what 

happens if they're not on probation and parole after 

they're released. 

MS. MCARDLE: Dave? 

MR. MUSSER: So. I think having that 

additional layer of data would likely make it more 

accurate, but without that, we would simply be reporting 

on, of the individuals who were released, which of them 

ultimately continued their education because the 

Department does have that that latter piece based on our 

FLDS data. 

MS. MCARDLE: Marisa. 

MS. BRITTON-BOSTWICK: So unfortunately, it 

is very hard to follow people once they're released. In 

the perfect world, we'd love to follow them and see all 

the amazing successes that they do. But unfortunately, 

what we usually see is when they come back and if they 

don't have any paper time or anything like that when 

they're released from a correctional facility, it is hard 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

47 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

to know if they went into a career or use their Pell 

funds to follow more postsecondary education. So that 

would be challenging. 

MS. MCARDLE: Stan. 

DR. ANDRISSE: I would agree. And just drop 

the point of why it is important, being a formerly 

incarcerated person, I didn't want anything to do with 

the DOC after after I left, so of course you couldn't get 

a hold of me. I was trying not for you to get a hold of 

me. So that's that's the importance of having formerly 

incarcerated people and community based organizations 

because you know, they can help in those types of 

situations and connecting. I mean that that's the only 

point that. Yes, I agree that it's hard to and it's 

because a lot of times it's intentional. 

MS. MCARDLE: Dave? 

MR. MUSSER: No, thank you for that, that's 

helpful, I think then that brings us back to the original 

question, which is that in order for us to make this a 

requirement and calculate the rate ourselves at the 

Department, I think we would need to as a condition of 

offering the prison education program, the Departments of 

Corrections would have to agree to provide the release 

data to the Department. Otherwise, we would have 

inconsistent data among different programs. So that's the 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

48 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

other piece I wanted to ask is that is that conceivable 

that we could get that kind of agreement from 

correctional agencies to obtain this information 

consistently? 

MS. MCARDLE: Marisa. 

MS. BRITTON-BOSTWICK: So and I might have 

missed this, but we would have to clarify what that 

release data is. What what does that entail? And do we 

know that, did I did I miss that somewhere? 

MR. MUSSER: No, no, we don't we don't know 

it specifically yet. And that's I mean, that's probably a 

further conversation, but let me just throw out something 

to give at least something to talk about. So, for 

example, at the time that the the reporting occurs, the 

Department would and this is kind of how it works for 

loan reporting, for enrollment, reporting for four 

students with who are loan recipients. We would say over 

time frame, we we are aware of these individuals who 

received Pell Grants that your institution who were who 

are at this at this facility. Can you can you tell us 

which of these individuals have been released? So it 

would be essentially a list of individuals that you would 

identify those who had been released over that time 

frame. And that and in that way, we could then start 

counting those individuals on our list of people who 
 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

49 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

potentially could obtain go into other education 

following release. 

MS. MCARDLE: Stan? 

DR. ANDRISSE: I'm sorry that was up from 

last time. 

MS. MCARDLE: I know Terrell, let me just 

check Terrell, is your hand still up or did you put it 

back down? 

MR. BLOUNT: I put it back down only because 

David, I believe, had clarified in his example, and I do 

believe if you're simply you simply are requesting 

release data in the sense of we know that X people X 

amount of people receive Pell Grants or draw draw down on 

Pell Grants at your institution within your PEP if you're 

looking at like what the date of release was for those 

individuals, then that is something not even I think that 

is something that of Corrections Departments can provide. 

MS. MCARDLE: And, Marisa. 

MS. BRITTON-BOSTWICK: So just so I have 

this clear. So all Corrections would have to provide is a 

release date and then after that, the Department would 

take over. I think that's very feasible. Anything really 

after release date, though, is is hard to guarantee. I 

would just reiterate that. 

MS. MCARDLE: Yes, Dave. 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

50 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

MR. MUSSER: Okay, I think I think that 

makes sense. And the other thing I wanted to clarify is 

it would be something that had to be reported and just 

check me if I have this wrong, by the Corrections agency, 

not by individual prisons, because of the possibility of 

transfer among among the state or among federal prisons, 

if it was the Bureau of Prisons, right? 

MS. MCARDLE: Marisa? 

MS. BRITTON-BOSTWICK: Well, speaking for 

Montana, and I could be wrong, but we sometimes ship all 

throughout the state, out of state, so it would have to 

come from where their DOC sentence originated. If I could 

be wrong, but that's who would have to report out the 

release data. But I can check on that. 

MR. MUSSER: And yeah, I think that's the 

key factor for me is that the Department also has to know 

who to ask so that we have the right or the correctional 

agency has to sort of field that for us to get the to get 

the right data. So that's the other piece I would ask 

about feasibility on. 

MS. BRITTON-BOSTWICK: Okay, I will look 

into that. Thank you. 

MS. MCARDLE: Terrell? 

MR. BLOUNT: Yes, I know it seems it may 

seem minuscule. And I know you didn't mean any harm in 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

51 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

it, Marisa. Can we use “transfer” instead of “ship” since 

we are talking about people and not cargo or goods? 

MS. BRITTON-BOSTWICK: Yes, and I have 

learned so much during this, so thank you so much, I I 

appreciate it and that will we just say certain words and 

yes, that will be changed. Thank you. 

MS. MCARDLE: Is your hand still up, Marisa? 

Okay. I see no more hands at this point. Aaron? 

MR. WASHINGTON: Yeah. David, did you have 

anything else on this or should we move to job placement? 

MR. MUSSER: Nothing else on this one? 

MR. WASHINGTON: Alright, thank you. 

Alright. 

MS. MCARDLE: We see Belinda. 

MS. WHEELER: Sorry, Aaron. There was a 

bullet point, yes, that I just had there, which didn't 

collate with what David was saying. So I wanted to make 

sure that I give voice to it before we go to job 

placement rate. Just to ask for the subcommittee's 

consideration for this, that if indeed this data point is 

going to be collected, you know, by the Department in 

order to determine operating in best interests of 

students. One of the things that I asked for the 

subcommittee to consider is that we include 

racial/ethnic, gender, and disability data for 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

52 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

enrollments, completions, and outcomes to ensure that 

there's indeed equity and inclusion in the prison 

education programs and post-release programing. So I just 

put that as a as a potential recommendation, if possible, 

for the subcommittee's consideration. Thank you. 

MS. MCARDLE: We have Stan and then Marisa. 

Stan. 

DR. ANDRISSE: Yes. So. So I just not quite 

understanding this one. And also, we didn't really so so 

what is being required? We're saying that all the deals, 

all that needs to be required is the exact release date 

and then the Department of Education will do what? And I 

have more to my question, so. 

MS. MCARDLE: Okay, shall we go to Dave 

first to clarify? 

MR. MUSSER: Sure, thanks. Yeah, it's a good 

question, Stan. So the idea at least and we're still 

working on feasibility on our side as well is that we 

know who the Pell recipients are so we can give that list 

to the Departments of Corrections so that they can tell 

us who of those have been released. We know then through 

enrollment reporting that all institutions are required 

to perform for Title IV recipients, who is enrolled at 

eligible institutions following the time frame where they 

received Pell as an incarcerated individual. We would 
 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

53 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

then put that into our annual report that we're required 

to to make by Congress and or and this is this is another 

thing that we're still working on about how this would 

work, provide it to the entities that are involved in 

making the determinations about the best interests of 

students. So either they would consult the annual report 

or they'd have this data point upon request or some, some 

very some variety of those things. But we would find a 

way to get it to the entity that makes that decision. 

DR. ANDRISSE: Okay and so you from that 

data, you have the means to calculate whether a student 

who's been released from a PEP is still in or not in a 

program of higher education, right? And so you can 

determine some rate for that particular program of how 

many of those students are still in. So then my my follow 

up, the additional question is to the the the ending part 

of this particular one where it's saying, you know, the 

meets threshold established by oversight entity, which 

essentially are the stakeholders that we are in 

conversation about from just our conversation a moment 

ago. But my question is, what is this what is what 

threshold what what is the value of adding that? And what 

are you thinking about in that? 

MR. WASHINGTON: I, you know, I can Dave, I 

don't know if he wanted to weigh in there, Dave, I can. 
 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

54 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

MR. MUSSER: I'll defer to Aaron on this 

part. 

MR. WASHINGTON: I think the threshold will 

be established by, you know, we have that, we have our 

current definition of oversight entity, you know, that, 

you know, keep in mind Stan it doesn't include your blue 

language, but as currently defined, it would be the 

threshold would be established by the Bureau of Prisons, 

State Department of Corrections or other oversight or 

other entity that was had oversight authority over the 

over the correctional facility, whether that be a 

juvenile justice facility or some other local jail or a 

work farm or reformatory. So they that entity, as 

currently written, would be responsible for establishing 

the threshold. 

DR. ANDRISSE: So conceivably then 

thresholds could be different state by state, depending 

on what the entity decided they wanted to be their 

threshold? 

MR. WASHINGTON: Here it looks, here, the 

Department was trying to provide the flexibility to the 

oversight entity to establish a threshold. And then and 

then, as David mentioned, it would be all of this would 

be reported to the Department of Education through an 

annual report. And in fact, I think there's another part 
 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

55 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

of the regulation that requires the terminations to be to 

be reported to the Department within we'll see, we'll see 

it, we'll see it soon but I think it's within 30 days. 

Yeah, it has to be submitted to the Secretary no later 

than 30 days following the completion of the evaluation. 

So we'll have annual reporting, we'll have reporting from 

the DOC, BOP when they make the determination. So 

there'll be reports to the Department about the 

thresholds that were utilized. 

DR. ANDRISSE: And you know, I think to 

Belinda's point about inclusion of racial, ethnic, gender 

disability groups, I think, you know, Terrell and Belinda 

possibly could speak you know, there's it's known that 

one of the complications in these programs often is that 

despite corrections being made up of 70 to 80 percent 

people of color, a lot of times these prison education 

programs are primarily white people who are in the 

program. And I think that's, you know, an importance of 

including those relevant stakeholder groups to be part of 

that acceptance of the program. I just don't, I mean, it 

just seems I'm not sure what the I still don't really 

know what the value of saying threshold is. I mean, you 

know, if it's going to be different from other groups and 

I think also I just wanted to point that, will this be so 

once, David, you know, something is calculated, is the 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

56 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

idea to then say that certain group certain programs 

don't meet a threshold and thus they are in jeopardy of 

their program not continuing? And I would be against 

that. 

MS. MCARDLE: Okay, we have Angie that's 

been waiting and then maybe we can go to David for a 

response. 

DR. PACCIONE: Yeah, thank you. I just 

wanted to support Belinda's recommendation about 

disaggregating the data, and I'm not sure if that's 

already being done in any of the reports that are coming 

out, but I think that's that's critical for higher ed to 

know what the success is of the programs and and to 

ensure equity. So I just wanted to really support that. 

MS. MCARDLE: Dave and then, Marisa. 

MR. MUSSER: So. Yeah, I don't want to speak 

for for Aaron, on the threshold component. From from our 

perspective at FSA, we want to be sure that the 

information is available and if if we're able to 

calculate this rate, I think the other consideration is 

we'd want to be sure that the it's publicly available 

given our statutory obligation to publish that annual 

report by program. So I will leave it to Aaron on the on 

the threshold component. And really my part of this is to 

ensure that we we can we can allow a correctional agency 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

57 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

to create a threshold, whether we require them to or not, 

is a policy consideration that you guys should talk 

through. I did want to talk for a moment about Belinda's 

recommendation here and that, so everything that I've 

discussed so far presumes that the only kind of reporting 

that we would need into in addition to what we're already 

collecting through administrative data to calculate this 

rate is that release date. To disaggregate this 

information, we would also have to collect some of this 

information in addition to what we normally collect 

through through our various systems of reporting 

disbursement, amounts and enrollment, et cetera. Some of 

these things are not things that we normally collect, and 

we would have to do again looking at feasibility for some 

of them to ensure that we are able to obtain them. For 

example, would we need to seek the students consent to 

obtain some of this? How much are we are going to be able 

to do with these? So I just want to I certainly support 

the idea, and I would like to see a report that includes 

as much disaggregation as we can. There may be some, some 

challenges to doing that that we still have to look at. 

And and the other thing is, normally our source of 

information on these items is schools. So I would flag 

that schools are the ones likely that would have to 

provide all this information to us. And some of these 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

58 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

data points can be challenging to collect in certain 

circumstances. So anyway, that's my that's my spiel on 

that and I just want to I would like to do some more 

talking about this particular idea as we go along. 

MS. MCARDLE: Marisa and then Stan. 

MS. BRITTON-BOSTWICK: So just for the 

record, thank you, Belinda. I think that is so critical 

to have the demographics, especially with, other things 

that large Native American populations that we see and 

maybe a pathway and into tribal colleges, I think that 

it's just really crucial to have those demographics. 

Thank you. 

MS. MCARDLE: Stan. 

DR. ANDRISSE: I, you know, this, two things 

to I agree with what Marisa just mentioned and of course, 

I agree with what Belinda mentioned. And I would add 

again to the that is one of the value to having that 

advisory committee, as they could potentially advise as 

how to reach out to tribal communities and schools as 

they would be comprised of stakeholders that may have 

more knowledge than a DOC would have in reaching that 

type of population. David, I would, what, you know, do 

you have in mind, which ones are more difficult to get 

and which ones are easy for you to get? 

MR. MUSSER: Another good question. I'm not 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

59 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

a privacy law expert, but, we I think we are trying to 

think of the challenges that we've come up against with 

some of these things. Disability information can be 

challenging to collect, we'd have to, I'm not sure 

exactly how we would collect that consistently, we could 

potentially. There are a variety of challenges associated 

with reporting gender that I don't want to get into here, 

but that we that maybe we could overcome. And I, you 

know, generally we the best way to collect a lot of this 

information is to get it from the individuals, which may 

create its own challenges here because we wouldn't 

collect a lot of this on the FAFSA that's our normal 

connection with individuals is when they apply on the 

FAFSA, we obtain a lot of information about their 

background. Now some of this we would be able to collect 

potentially once this is all up and running after the 

FAFSA Simplification takes effect in a few years. So we 

may be obtaining information about race on the FAFSA. But 

the other two components gender and disability, yeah, 

those might be the ones that were a little bit more 

challenging. But it's it is it's possible I think we just 

need to look at how how how many privacy considerations 

there are and sort of do we need consent from everybody, 

do we have to ask the individual to give consent when 

starting the program? Is that something we have to 
 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

60 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

require schools to obtain? If not, that makes it a lot 

easier. But those are the things that I'm thinking about 

as we're talking about this, this option. 

MS. MCARDLE: Stan? 

DR. ANDRISSE: Yes, I mean, again, to the I 

think that would be a strong consideration for the 

Advisory Committee to look at in terms of the racial, 

ethnic makeup of programing. And I think that that could 

be one of the values again to that type of entity. But I 

mean, we we know that there is because the challenges 

that you know of what disability and gender, less 

information is known within the higher education prison 

field about the disparities there. But it is pretty well 

documented the disparities in racial, ethnic makeup of 

these prison education programs. So I mean, for us to 

know that and then not do something intentionally to 

address it, is problematic to me. So I think that's why, 

you know, that would that piece would be very important 

to include. 

MS. MCARDLE: Marisa. 

MS. BRITTON-BOSTWICK: I agree, Stan, and I 

think we just cannot forget any people in this process, 

no matter who they are and what their backgrounds are. 

The thing is about the demographic information is that, 

doesn't don't Department of Corrections get that 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

61 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

information upon intake? Wouldn't that be very easy to 

compile? And also state education offices when you sign 

them up into an education program require that 

demographic information. I mean, they can choose, choose 

not to answer, but that's very rare when I go through any 

paperwork anymore. So I'm just wondering. I think it's 

very feasible. 

MS. MCARDLE: Dave. 

MR. MUSSER: So and this is where this is 

not my area of expertise, so I do want to I I appreciate 

that that that you think that it might be more feasible. 

What we what limited information we've heard is that 

there are occasions where the Departments of Corrections 

have told us, we can't divulge that information to you. 

We have it in some cases, but there are laws, either 

state laws or federal laws, et cetera, again, that I'm 

not as familiar with that prevents us from providing this 

information more broadly for research purposes or for 

other purposes. So I think that's the piece that I'm I'm 

not sure about, and that is a crucial part of the 

feasibility of collecting all of this. If if the 

correctional agencies have it, that's one whole hurdle 

that we've gotten past, I think then the next question 

is, is there a patchwork of laws that may or may not 

prevent it? Is there, are there federal laws that prevent 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

62 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

some of these things from being released without consent 

across the board? That that's the level of detail that we 

would need to have in order to know whether we could do 

this consistently. 

MS. MCARDLE: Stan. 

DR. ANDRISSE: Sorry, I left it up from last 

time, sorry. 

MS. MCARDLE: Okay. In that case, I see no 

other hands, Aaron. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Alright, thank you. So I 

think, you know, we hopefully we're trying to get through 

the the remainder of the indicators today. I don't want 

to rush the conversation. I think it's been really great 

conversation for the last hour, actually. So I will move 

to job placement rates, next. And we did have a comment 

bubble there for you to consider. So we're just saying 

that, you know, we know the job placement rates are 

particularly hard to calculate and so the Department does 

not have good data on the field of study of graduates. 

Thus, we proposed to instead rely on a definition by 

accrediting agencies and states, if applicable, state 

DOCs may find an institution may find an institution to 

be operating in the best interests of students if the 

institution meets those accreditor state standards, if no 

accreditor, there's no accreditor or state job placement 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

63 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

rate exists, the oversight entity, meaning the Bureau of 

Prisons or State Department of Corrections, may wish to 

establish a job placement rate requirement in 

consultation with incarcerated individuals and other 

advocates and in their advocates and accrediting 

agencies. So again, I'll open it up for conversation. 

MS. MCARDLE: Belinda? 

MS. WHEELER: Yes, thank you. I just wanted 

to say I appreciated how we went from the original 

language of these different metrics on the first day in 

October, and now we're getting to some of the revised, 

you know, taking into consideration what colleagues have 

said, you know, between the first time that we met to 

today because I'm really seeing how a lot of this 

language is definitely opening up. So I just wanted to 

make sure that I, you know, mention that and say that I 

appreciate that we're continuing to kind of expand these 

these definitions, like the Department had asked at the 

very beginning. I just bring up and again, this may be a 

bit of a bit of a tracking nightmare for the Department 

or whatever entity as we're moving here, but again, 

trying to push the envelope, trying to make sure that you 

know, these these programs are really again serving the 

best interests of students. I put in with the 

recommendation to colleagues via email last night, and I 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

64 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

see the Department has put it in here that in addition to 

just like the general overall job placement rates, I 

wonder if we could please also note in-demand careers, 

you know, also being recorded to provide stronger 

benchmarks for programing. Again, I'm not sure if that's 

a logistical nightmare, but it seems to it would seem to 

me, you know, to add value to to those programs and to 

kind of help both the students as they're looking to 

evaluate different programs and kind of determine which 

program they might want to be a part of but then also, 

you know, for other stakeholders in that as well. So 

thank you for considering that. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you, Belinda. Can you 

expand on in-demand careers? Is that defined or you have 

a definition for that? 

MS. WHEELER: Yes, thank you. Yeah, I should 

put that in there, but I was really just saying something 

like, you know, beyond a livable wage like, you know, 

some kind of, you know, like not just and nothing 

against, you know, someone who has a full time job at a 

McDonald's or something like that but if we're if we're 

looking at like someone having a baccalaureate degree in 

something, you know that that it really is perhaps a more 

matched kind of career matched with their degree program, 

for example. So maybe rather than even just in-demand, 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

65 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

you know, like a a career that matches their credential? 

Again, I'm not sure if I'm muddying the waters for the 

Department or whoever else you know does this, but I 

think, you know, you know, again, as someone who used to 

wear the other hat, you know, in the educational field, 

that was one area that we always looked at with 

accreditation. You know, if a student does indeed have a, 

you know, a degree or certification in this particular 

field, are they actually working, you know, applying that 

certificate or credential to that actual job that they 

wanted? So I hope that provides a little bit more 

context, and I apologize I probably should have just said 

career matched with credential kind of thing. So thank 

you. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you for the 

clarification. 

MS. MCARDLE: Terrell, did you mean to put 

your hand down? 

MR. BLOUNT: Yeah I'm still trying to figure 

out if my hand raises need to stay up or is it just like 

a flag to let you know? But it seems like it's been 

working, so I'll continue to do that, but I don't think. 

MS. MCARDLE: Keep it up keep it up. 

MR. BLOUNT: Keep it up? Okay. 

MS. MCARDLE: Just checking though. 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

66 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

MR. BLOUNT: I don't think the in-demand 

piece. I think the in-demand piece would be necessary for 

those programs that lead with this PEP that they're 

presenting to to lead toward like increases in 

employment. That's not something that I normally hear 

from liberal arts and humanities and, you know, other 

other areas, but you know, those programs that are 

introduced into the prison as something that is going to 

create more jobs for directly impacted people, if that's 

what they're going to lead with and why this program 

should be accepted, I don't see anything wrong with them 

having to kind of follow up and provide, you know, 

outcomes based on their their program. 

MS. MCARDLE: Marisa. 

MS. BRITTON-BOSTWICK: So, Belinda, one of 

the main things that we're hearing all the time is this 

in-demand career, it's a buzzword right now. And it's 

really important that that's in there because we want 

things that are sustainable income to fill employment 

gaps. We don't want any more women leaving our facilities 

and just going into housekeeping or just going into food 

service because that's what has always been done. And 

with the males too, we want, for correctional education 

for me is sustainable income. And that they and like you 

said before Stan, thinks that like breaking that ceiling. 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

67 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

And I think this is so important to have in there. I'm 

not sure if it's the right words and maybe Stan and 

Terrell you can help with that but that's powerful right 

there. Thank you. 

MS. MCARDLE: Stan. 

DR. ANDRISSE: So thank you, and I am also 

for the inclusion of in-demand. I I I wanted to just 

point out also that a couple of things I think this is 

again where the “May” or “Must” comes into such strong 

relevance. These, you know, if it's the “May”, you know, 

a program could choose to include the in demand or choose 

you know, you know, not potentially not include that. And 

it would be up to the advisory committee that is made up 

of these stakeholders to help that particular state do 

what is best for that state. I think that it's also, you 

know, I agree with Belinda, I like the additions that 

were made that state that it is the stakeholder entities. 

And I mean, in this language, it it includes the 

incarcerated individuals as a “Must” and accrediting 

agencies as a “Must”, you know, I think that it's 

important if we have that advisory committee piece, when 

we get to things like this, they can define what is the 

threshold, what is maybe the threshold because of the 

difficulties is set, you know, accordingly, you know, to 

what what that what that committee advises, you know, and 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

68 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

is not set to individuals who are not that have not been 

impacted by the system. You know, I think that is the the 

having the advisory committee is the guardrail to 

potentially setting a threshold that is that makes this 

exclusive. By having the advisory committee, we can 

assure that this threshold is not exclusive and that it 

remains inclusive and doesn't keep programs out. I think 

both the changing to “May” will help do that, as well as 

having the advisory committee will help keep this 

inclusive as opposed to exclusive as opposed to and that 

was my question earlier to David and Aaron about what are 

you intending to use threshold for? Are you intending to 

use this to exclude programs? But if it's on the advisory 

committee to make that decision, then you know, I think, 

you know, it would be, you know, I would be in favor of 

that. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Yeah, I think the 

threshold, I'm sorry, Marisa, I mean, can I answer that, 

Marisa? 

MS. BRITTON-BOSTWICK: Yes. 

MR. WASHINGTON: I think the threshold is 

really to ensure that the programs are operating and 

continue to operate in the best interest of students, and 

so the law says rates, I mean, the statutory text is 

deleted in red line. So we do have, you know, the 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

69 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

Congress did say that the Bureau Prisons or the 

Department of Corrections would have to take into account 

the rates of job placement rates or rates of confinement 

incarcerated individuals. So if you have a rate, you 

know, if the entity is oversight, it is looking at a 

rate, then a threshold is a natural outcome of setting a 

threshold for that rate is a natural outcome I think of 

the statutory text. So that's why we're but we're still 

providing the flexibility of here, the accrediting agency 

or the or the actually or the the Bureau of Prisons, the 

Department of Corrections to establish those establish 

those those rates. 

MS. MCARDLE: Marisa and then Stan. 

MS. BRITTON-BOSTWICK: I think I'm good, I 

just want to make sure that this piece is in there for 

the record, that I think it should be in there and that 

we need to work on the in-demand. I don't, I this is 

where the hands in the cookie jar come in, and I think we 

really need to be thinking about the students and how 

they can sustain a livelihood and raise their children 

and move on once they're released. So I think this could 

use some finesse, but it's so important to me and I just 

want that on the record. 

MR. WASHINGTON: And just something, I'm 

sorry. 
 

 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

70 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

MS. MCARDLE: I just wanted to see if Stan 

intended to put his hand down or? 

DR. ANDRISSE: I was just going to 

acknowledge that I understand Aaron's comment and 

explanation of threshold. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Wow, thanks, I appreciate 

that I thought it was going to be like, but wait a 

minute. Yeah, and I wanted to talk about “May” or “Must” 

as well. So I think what we wanted to avoid is a 

situation in which an oversight entity, however, that 

ends up being defined, it says, well, we're only going to 

look at transferability of credit and nothing else. You 

know, so there's a “May” there and you know, I mean, all 

these wonderful ideas that we've had in blue and all this 

language that we're trying to develop, what if, what if 

the oversight entity, you know, is like, well, actually, 

we're only going to look at transferability of credit, 

you know, and as long as it transfers to one institution 

in the state, then we're good. We're not looking at 

earnings, we're not looking at education post-release, 

we're not looking at, you know, academic and career 

counseling, career services upon reentry, we're just 

going to look at one of the indicators. 

MS. MCARDLE: Stan. 

DR. ANDRISSE: Again, I would reiterate that 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

71 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

that that's the value of having that advisory committee 

to assure that you have a whole group of stakeholders 

that each of them are coming with their, you know, you 

have the accrediting agencies, you have the higher 

education institutions, you have the formerly 

incarcerated people, so they're going to come with what 

they believe needs to be part of and important to the 

program. So having them as part of that oversight will 

ensure that they meet the best interests of the student. 

Particularly, again for my particular constituency, I 

think, and as Terrell and many have mentioned, like it's 

important that formerly incarcerated people, you know, be 

part of that. So if the table comes and says, well, you 

know, you should be meeting the job placement of, you 

know, this college student that came from this, the 

program you're in, you're at Harvard, like Harvard people 

go here, right? And you know, there would be someone at 

the table to explain that I am a formerly incarcerated 

person. I can't get the same jobs that you get, even 

though I'm, you know, have education from Harvard. So I 

think that would put the checks and balances in place 

that would make it okay to have “May” there because, you 

know, the correct stakeholders would would speak their 

their particular interest as is needed within that state 

within those programs. 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

72 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

MS. MCARDLE: I see no other hands at this 

time. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Alright, well, let's move 

to earnings. I think the last one we'll probably be able 

to talk to today with our remaining time is earnings, and 

I don't want to say that we should rush the conversation. 

We probably should try and wrap up that conversation in 

about seven or eight minutes, but we can always return to 

it in the morning. But for our next indicator, the 

Department, so we have a comment bubble there that you 

see on your screens, the Department does have the ability 

to calculate earnings of program graduates program 

graduates using College Scorecard report data. For 

instance, the College Scorecard reports data on program 

earnings by field of study and credential level. 

Similarly, the Department has historically calculated and 

published via the Scorecard the percentage of graduates 

earned above the typical earnings of a high school 

graduate to measure how consistently the education pays 

off for the students. So we propose to provide these 

earnings back to institutions and oversight entities to 

inform the decision of whether the program is operating 

in the best interest in the students’ best interests, 

rather than relying on a measure as it pertains to prison 

education programs, rather than rather than only relying 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

73 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

on the measure as it pertains to prisoner education 

programs. Institutions may provide metrics on similar 

programs at the institutions, demonstrate their ability 

to provide the program in the best interest of students. 

And so here uh, yeah, so so I will pause there for 

conversation. And Belinda, did you have, I think Belinda 

may have because you have something for this section? 

MS. MCARDLE: And I see no comments at this 

point. 

MR. WASHINGTON: I'm wondering, I don't 

know, Belinda, I believe I don't think you had anything 

for this section. Okay. 

MS. MCARDLE: Still no comments. 

MS. WHEELER: Surprise, my friend. Enjoy 

that there was no recommendation, my friend. 

MS. MCARDLE: And still no other comments. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Okay, maybe we need to move 

to the next one. So for the next one, I think we took a 

comment bubble from the Department as well. Let's see, do 

we have one? Yeah. So recidivism rates are particularly 

hard to calculate in the Department does not have good 

data on the field of study for graduates. Thus, we 

propose to instead allow over the oversight entity to 

establish a recidivism rate requirement in consultation 

with incarcerated individuals and their advocates in 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

74 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

accrediting agencies. We also explicitly disallow certain 

types of students from being included in the calculations 

to ensure that institutions are not unfairly judged by 

poorly designed recidivism rates. 

DR. ANDRISSE: I don't see it on my screen, 

is my screen just frozen? 

MR. WASHINGTON: It might be frozen, it 

looks like on my screen, Vanessa does have the comment 

box open. So, Stan, can you see the definition there? 

DR. ANDRISSE: Not now, I see it, now I see. 

Yeah, there must be a delay somehow. 

MR. WASHINGTON: So for this, for the 

recidivism rate, the the here we have the oversight 

entity establishing a rate of recidivism and we took into 

account, I think that there were some comments made last 

time that said, you know, do not think I have, let's see, 

I think I added it, Belinda and Stan said do not consider 

recidivism rates recidivism rates within three, five, or 

seven years and only include those with a new felony 

convictions. So you see the new felony conviction 

language in here and also instead of saying three, five, 

or seven, we added “a reasonable number of years”. And 

that was because we didn't want to set a a year in the 

regulation. And, you know, we did know we realize that 

the Department of Corrections may all have different 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

75 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

definitions of recidivism, so we didn't want to conflict 

with any definition of recidivism that was out there. So 

the oversight entity would, you know, establish what that 

reasonable, reasonable number of years was in 

collaboration with other other relevant stakeholders. 

MS. MCARDLE: Belinda. 

MS. WHEELER: Thank you very much. This is 

the the comments, I can't speak for my colleague Stan I 

want to make sure that he has a chance to. But I know at 

least when when I was making this recommendation along 

with Stan in October, we were working within the confines 

of this being “Must” language. You know, with “May” being 

put to the table here speaking again, only for myself 

this is an area where I would prefer to see for a prison 

education program, recidivism cut. You know, as someone 

who used to wear the prison education program director 

hat and just as a regular educator, I would have never 

thought that this would be something that I would track 

doing the work with Vera, you know, with Second Chance 

Pell sites and things of that nature. You know, I know 

that other entities across the country already track 

recidivism rates for whatever reasons that they need to 

do. And again, for that prison education program, if we 

can, you know, utilize the “May”, I would actually 

recommend my bubble would be a strong recommendation to 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

76 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

cut this completely. I just don't see any value on how 

the quality of an educational program, whether it's a 

really amazing good quality program or even one that's 

not necessarily that correlation with someone recidivate, 

whether it's a brand new felony conviction, whether you 

know, I just. So I will stop there. Stan, I see your hand 

is raised I want to thank you. 

MR. WASHINGTON: Vanessa, can you add that 

quickly to the Belinda recommends to if the determination 

is, well, Belinda recommends to not take into account 

recidivism in the best interest determination. 

DR. ANDRISSE: Yeah, I mean, if that is I 

mean, I would also recommend the same thing. You know, we 

I think several people mentioned that last time as well, 

to to that, they would be for not including recidivism. 

But I also I was also going to mention that that it, you 

know, the the the revision that I appreciate, you know, 

taking our thoughts into the revision. 

MS. MCARDLE: Marisa. 

MS. BRITTON-BOSTWICK: So, Belinda and I 

spoke about this and it recidivism is always really a 

buzzword, also, it's the first thing that comes up. 

What's the recidivism rate? So how would you move forward 

when people ask you that about these prison education 

programs? That's the first question we always get asked 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

77 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

in corrections, what's the recidivism rate? So I think we 

just really need to think about this and how we move 

forward with other data that would support funding and 

staffing. Because this really is a a word that comes up 

right away. And I just, I'd like to think through that a 

little bit. 

MS. MCARDLE: Terrell. 

MR. BLOUNT: Thank you. I think to Marisa's 

question really quickly, and this I guess this isn't more 

so of an answer, but just a I guess a thought that I'd 

share, which is, you know, I know a lot of the times 

correction, Departments approve programs that you know, 

don't don't necessarily lead to people staying home and 

thriving on the outside that and they aren't education 

programs a lot of the time. So, you know, programs like 

Thinking For a Change or Focusing On The Victim and 

things of that nature, those programs are green lit and 

allowed to come inside of the facilities. And they hardly 

ever, if ever have I heard someone say that they stay at 

home and they're doing great out here because of programs 

like that. And I don't think they're held with the same 

type of scrutiny that higher education in prison programs 

are, or in this case, PEPs. So again, that's just a 

thought that I wanted to kind of add to that discussion 

not necessarily an answer to your question. But I also 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

78 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

wanted to point out that in regard to recidivism, I don't 

think it is a metric that should be used to come up or 

judge the quality of a prison education program. But I do 

want to share with my colleagues that in the in the 

wildly rare situation where a prison education program 

you look at, there's students that participated and if 

80% of them just the random number, but you know, a 

majority of them are returning or indeed they're 

graduating from the programs and are returning back to 

prison on new violations or parole violations. I think 

that is telling whether I think it's more so about that 

best interests of the student piece and also to the much 

larger point that Stan and the rest of the group 

continues to stress, which is that having multiple 

stakeholders involved, it removes the accountability from 

just one or two actors, which is the education 

institution and the Department of Corrections and 

involves and encompasses a much larger group which is 

peer support networks through formerly incarcerated 

people that have gone home already, and are doing well 

and can give tips and strategies to those coming home. 

Those stakeholder groups that are community based 

organizations so again, recidivism shouldn't be judged, 

shouldn't be used to judge the quality of a program. 

However, in the case of best interests, if a program is 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

79 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

operating in the best interest of students, I would look 

for if I saw data that indicated a lot of people who are 

returning from your program, I would have questions about 

what that program is or not doing for their students. 

MS. MCARDLE: Aaron, it is 3:00, actually 

3:01. 

MR. WASHINGTON: 3:01, I think we still have 

one more comment from Stan, let's let him comment please. 

DR. ANDRISSE: Thank you for letting me 

share my comments. To Marisa, I think, you know, 

corrections does often ask for recidivism when they ask 

for that because we get asked that in the work that we 

do, we tell them our graduation rates and our persistence 

rates, the rates of people returning to college and an 

additional year, we tell them our GPA, which in our 

program is like a 3.75, we tell them their success in 

reconnecting with their family. So there is, I mean, 

there's we and, you know, graduation, persistent GPA, 

those are just the academic metrics that you would use 

for an academic program. So I mean, we share those 

instead of recidivism. 

MR. WASHINGTON: With that, it's 3:02 now, 

and I think we should adjourn for the day tomorrow will 

come back and finish up the best interest piece and then 

go back through the entire regulation only in areas that 
80

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

obviously we didn't get obtain a positive temperature 

check in and clean up the language and hopefully it comes 

out one recommendation. So we'll see you all at 10 a.m. 

tomorrow morning, Eastern Time. Thank you all. 

1

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 
81 

Subcommittee Meetings - 11/09/21 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8