With Pell reinstated for incarcerated individuals, thousands of new Prison Education

Programs (PEP) will be created. The U.S. Department of Education (DOE) is engaged in

negotiated rulemaking to provide regulations in support of this new law. Absent from the

conversations is that more individuals who will now begin a postsecondary education inside

will not finish their degree within the correctional setting and will instead have to finish

during reentry. This paper establishes the obligation of the U.S. Department of Education to

support education in reentry. Based on interviews with formerly incarcerated individuals,

the paper also demonstrates the types of support PEP could provide to help with the

‘education continuum’ from college inside to education outside. The ultimate goal is that the

Department of Education seize this opportunity to create a regulatory framework that

reflects the realities of the inextricable link between correctional education and education in

reentry and advance the values it has previously promoted that will provide the most

educational access and opportunity.

MEMORANDUM

TO:

RE:

DATE:

FROM:

Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education (DOE)

Supporting Continuity of Education From Carceral Setting to Reentry In

Regulations on Pell Grants for Prison Education Programs

12/03/2021

Two Formerly Incarcerated led Organizations that focus on Education: College

& Community Fellowship & Formerly Incarcerated College Graduates Network

Summary

Issue: Most of those in Prison Education Programs will Not Graduate Inside

There is a widespread assumption by many--including the federal government and PEP--

that most incarcerated individuals' educational journey ends inside the prison walls.

However, this is patently false as many people will have to continue their education during

reentry to obtain a degree. The DOE must consider including regulations that support this

population who will not complete their degrees while incarcerated by establishing

1

1

_________________________________________

In establishing eligibility for Title IV funding, the Department of Education is calling programs “Prison Education Programs” (PEP).

Right now the programs are called College-in-Prison program providers, higher education in prison and other terms. For the purposes

of clarity throughout this paper we will refer to all education programs offered inside as Prison Education Programs.

_______

________
requirements for PEP programs to engage students in education continuity planning and to

link them to or directly provide community-based reentry services that support degree

completion post-release. Failure to do so undermines the promises made by DOE around

Pell restoration and threatens to reduce the return on federal investment made through

PEPs.

Due to transfers, which are often not recorded, sentence length, and other external factors,

many cannot finish their educational journey inside prison. The DOE has recognized this

Due to transfers, which are often not recorded, sentence length, and other external factors,

many cannot finish their educational journey inside prison. The DOE has recognized this

phenomenon and its impact on the continuity of education. Given the statement that most

people will not obtain their degree inside, the natural question is what percentage of people

graduate from PEP? Unfortunately, that data does not exist. Current PEP are Second Chance

Pell Sites, which were created with the intention to be evaluated and other programs that

operate with state-based funding or private funding do not have data that can be

extrapolated. Others exist with private funding and there is no central repository of

information. However, one study acknowledged: “our data did not allow us to track whether

people went to college before, during, or after incarceration,” it found as of 2009, 29% of the

U.S. population had a college degree, while only 4% of formerly incarcerated people did.

Our organizations--College & Community Fellowship (“CCF”) and the Formerly

Incarcerated College Graduates Network (“FICGN”)—both serve people in reentry pursuing

degree completion, and we have both worked with many students to overcome the

challenges of reentry while seeking higher education degreesBoth of our organizations serve

many students who started educational programs while incarcerated but did not complete

their degrees pre-release.. In addition, both organizations work with many justice-impacted

persons who did not begin their educational journey until they had been released to the

community. Among FICGN members at intake, 55% indicated that they had not taken a

college course while incarcerated. n 2000, College & Community Fellowship (“CCF”)

became the first community-based organization to support the success of women reentering

the community on release from prison by using the attainment of a college degree as the

primary goal and motivation. By implementing many of the practices described below we

were able to help women obtain their degree. Since then, many organizations have followed

suit and offer similar support for college success to women and men post-incarceration. We

conducted a number of interviews with alumni to inform this paper.

Prison Education Programs (PEP) and the Department of Education (DOE)

have an Ongoing Obligation To See Students’ Journey Through Reentry

_______

As new PEP enter correctional facilities across the country, thousands of incarcerated people

will begin their postsecondary education. If PEP solely operated with the intention and value

of providing courses to the carceral population their responsibility would not extend to the

incarcerated person post-release. Yet the obligation of PEP’ comes from their own mission

1
and value statements. A randomized review yielded promises of opportunity, liberation,

employment, and degree completion. As will be explored, PEP are uniquely positioned to

assist in the journey to higher education, whether on their respective college campus or at

another.

The DOE also has a responsibility to ensure the successful completion of education by those

who are released from prison based on the intent of the statute they act pursuant to, their

own proposed frameworks and findings, and the values they have put forth specific to this

population. Most obviously, Pell eligibility requires enrollment in a degree-granting

program and there is a limit to how many Pell Grant awards one can receive in a lifetime.

Further, the enacting statute, the , that triggered

negotiated rulemaking considers factors that involve a continuing educational journey when

determining what would make a program eligible to be a PEP. This includes “the

transferability of credits for courses available to confined or incarcerated individuals” and

“offering relevant academic and career advising services to participating confined or

incarcerated individuals while they are confined . . . and upon release [emphasis added].”

These factors contemplate education within reentry.

Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021

This is consistent with years of findings by the DOE that actually introduced the term

“education continuum” in the Reentry Framework. The Reentry Framework was first

created in 2012 by the DOE with partners to illustrate and strengthen the existing and

necessary reciprocal relationships between both education inside and continued support

outside prison facilities. In the section Ensuring Education is Well Integrated in the

Corrections system, DOE’s Reentry model posits:

“Those who are incarcerated or under community supervision have a range of needs

and risks that must be identified upon intake and addressed during their incarceration

or community supervision to ensure their successful reintegration into society. . .

Education services, therefore, should be closely coordinated with support services and

other services in the facility (e.g., employment services and prison jobs) designed to

address offenders’ diverse needs.”

After acknowledging the inextricable ties between correctional education and reentry and

promoting this among states, not only here but in grantmaking proposals as well, it is only

reasonable under this new law, through which they have a direct nexus to correctional

education through the provision of Pell, that the DOE would incorporate the principles they

researched and promote.

2

_________________________________________

In 2012, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education (OCTAE) released its Reentry Education

Model, an evidence based effort “to bridge the gap between prison and community-based education and training programs.” This is

continuously updated and the latest iteration, post-Pell implementation has yet to be published.

The DOE has also promoted the inherent value of higher education for formerly incarcerated

people whether or not it is the continuation of a pathway that began inside prison. In 2016, the

2

2
Department of Education began to promote educational opportunities for those with

criminal convictions, through Beyond the Box. Noting that 95% of people or roughly

600,000 who return home annually, the DOE called on universities and employers to

remove criminal conviction questions because, according to the DOE, we as a nation “need

the talents and energy of every American.” Ignoring the role to bridge gaps and build success

for formerly incarcerated people is talent “disposal” and runs counter to American principles

like open access and individualism.

In 2016, the White House and the DOE also asked universities to take the Fair Chance

Education Pledge which includes much of what we wish the DOE would advance through

the regulatory language including but not limited to “[e]stablish partnerships with the

community to ensure support for the holistic needs of students'' and “[r]ecruit peer mentors,

college coaches, and successful justice-involved graduates to work with justice-involved

students.” These sentiments continued to the next administration which saw the DOE

doubling the number of Second Chance Pell sites and ultimately reinstating Pell for all

incarcerated students.

Given that the DOE created a framework for understanding that education continues during

reentry and has sought to promote better outcomes for those formerly incarcerated in

obtaining their degree, it only makes sense that the DOE would create regulations that

support and advance the continuity of education from inside prison onto campuses.

The Regulatory Text and the Changes that Must be Made

_______

Acknowledging that many incarcerated individuals will obtain their degrees in the reentry

process and that the DOE has an ongoing responsibility to support them - the regulatory

language needs to reflect these principles.

The decisions the DOE makes now cannot be overstated in

significance. Whatever the DOE puts forth, states will likely follow. It

provides the floor

As the language stands, it mentions reentry but does not sufficiently or with enough

specificity provide the multiple layers of support this population needs. The educational

journey in reentry is far more treacherous than inside prison. Inside the prison walls,

education offers a reprieve from harsh conditions. Individuals report taking as many classes

as possible and much of the work needed to do this is handled by PEP.

Without a value statement on either prison or reentry, reentry is predominantly

characterized by conditions that make obtaining an education far more difficult. An

3
Identify or provide or at a minimum link to providers who can address basic needs

associated with the state’s community supervision requirements such as housing and

employment that can be barriers to education completion.

Financial aid counseling, digital literacy, accreditation support, transfer and enrollment

counseling*, on-campus support, and counseling on all that is associated with education

outside prison, as well as building a career

Identification of and information about educational institutions in the community that

may be accessible to the student’s place of release and provide educational programs

aligned with the student’s degree objectives

Soft skill-building like networking, problem solving, project management, and selfadvocacy

Creation of safe spaces and mentorship programs post-release

In order to be eligible to operate, require Prison Education Programs (PEP) to engage

collaboratively with each student to develop an education continuity plan as part of reentry

planning. 

Require that this typ of reentry planning follow standards established by a collaboration of

stakeholders, including formerly and currently incarcerated individuals, at the federal

and/or state level who must establish appropriate standards to be fulfilled by a prison

education program through means, such as, partnerships with community-based

organizations and is continuously updated. The group must also create an evaluation to

provide to every cohort of alumni to constantly refine and identify gaps in reentry support.

The standards should include, at a minimum:

individual must identify basic needs like housing and employment and balance competing

interests like familial obligations and community supervision. These basic needs do not even

touch on the difficulty of navigating all that is associated with education, especially as an

adult learner.

For precedent on how to support students obtaining education during reentry, and to hold

PEP to accountable, the DOE should look no further than to the services that they already

provide for adult/non-traditional students that include components like college admissions

applications, assessment and enhancement of basic skills through counseling, mentoring,

tutoring, and academic instruction in the core subject area.

We propose that the DOE: _______

Prison education programs must provide ongoing evaluations to see that their approach to

reentry planning is sufficient. If significant themes emerge, the DOE should identify

grantmaking opportunities to support innovations in closing gaps that do not prohibit the

participation of smaller Prison Education Programs.

*Prison Education Programs that are educational institutions should set up policies to

transfer students directly onto their campus if the students wish.

Whether the formerly incarcerated student actually follows the reentry plan should not be

a metric. It is on the Prison Education Program provider to offer it and up to any student

if they wish to follow it.

4
Regulatory Language Must be Specific Enough to Require Real Reentry

Consideration and Flexible Enough to Adapt to State Specific Needs

_______

The current language put forward by the U.S. Department of Education is a mixture of

language that has not yet been approved by the main negotiating committee. The ideal

language has minimum standards, broad stakeholder feedback, and adaptability. The

emphasis of “reentry planning” is meant to reflect the malleability based on how all of the

various components at issue, from administration of correctional education, to varying

reentry resources from state to state.

The hope is the language would generate state level legislation that encourages reentry

consideration consistent with jurisdictional requirements. Models of PEP vary drastically

across jurisdictions. Some PEP are educational institutions that can matriculate

incarcerated people for a seamless transition onto campus, while others facilitate college

through partnerships with higher education institutions. Ideal legislation is California’s SB416. The legislation requires partnership with the State’s preeminent programs that advance

incarcerated and formerly incarcerated people in obtaining their degree and includes

measures like, “[c]oordinate with other colleges and universities serving students in the

department so that inmate students who are transferred to another institution can continue

building toward a degree or credential.”

Reentry Planning: Illustrations of the Concrete and the Intangible

Considerations PEP Must Include for Education in Reentry

______

Given that the DOE and PEP have a responsibility to help the completion of education in

reentry, through a literature review, informal conversations with peers, and interviews with

alumni, we have identified some of the biggest deficits that exist in the current college-inprison regime and describe some ways these could be addressed. This is meant to more

vividly illustrate where and how PEP can assist with a formerly incarcerated individual’s

journey onto campus. Our hope is that this depiction will help the DOE to understand how

PEP can work with students and what best practices look like. While this goes into greater

detail than would ever be addressed by the DOE, we hope seeing what the ideal connections

and actions look like will help the DOE to craft the appropriate regulatory language and

corresponding guidance to aid in allowing formerly incarcerated individuals to ultimately

achieve long-term self-efficacy. As much as possible, the below is meant to apply to a Prison

Education Program of any kind, though it will occasionally be noted how certain models can

do more.

Our interviews shed light on just how little the education continuum is currently supported.

The overarching theme of our interviews was that stepping onto campuses, even at the

educational institutions they had enjoyed inside, was described negatively with some going

as far as to say it was “the most demoralizing experience of my life.” Others described feeling

like they were provided “access” but then set up to fail and others recounted stories of being

shamed and treated as a “second class citizen.”

5
Identified Obstacles to Education in Reentry

_______

Each obstacle to education in reentry has multiple components. These obstacles should not

define the education continuum. In fact, one of the most critical components is that we shift

focus to what assets formerly incarcerated students bring to an educational institution.

Reentry presents hurdles like the immediate need for stable housing, employment, and

other resources, which is required to satisfy community supervision. There is the need for

assistance in obtaining these supports, as well as the need for appropriate perception of the

time, resources, and energy that will be dedicated to getting these supports and how that

might be counterbalanced against any demands by an educational institution.

Some interviewees who pursued education described the disappointment in themselves

when they could not fulfill a certain course load, while others lamented that after doing

everything in their power to tend to all their emerging responsibilities, college now seemed

too far away. A few interviewees went as far as to say that obstacles faced in education on the

outside were often triggering. Many walked the halls feeling isolated and not knowing what

was appropriate to ask and what would make them seem foolish. Finally, there was the

detriment of the assumptions made about the person based on status and that the manner

in which they were characterized or felt they were observed caused harm.

Best Practices to Guide how PEP might conduct “reentry planning”

_______

PEP cannot and should not be solely responsible for all aspects of reentry. However, based

on when they are introduced to the incarcerated person, they may play a key role. What they

can do is often dictated by their resources. For example, while all PEP should be responsible

for assisting people in finding housing or linking to housing providers, a small PEP may

conduct a needs assessment and provide the appropriate referral, while a large educational

institution should consider providing housing themselves. Many of the most significant

partnerships will be with community-based organizations (CBO). All PEP should be

required to conduct “reentry planning” that involves working with the students to assess

what needs they have upon release, connecting them with the appropriate service providers,

and through partnerships or their own work, supporting degree attainment.

PEP should start to promote the completion of education, if not possible inside prison, as a

goal as early on as possible when they begin providing correctional education and

administering courses in prison. The PEP should also speak to what education is like

outside, utilizing alumni and compensating them to inspire individuals inside prison. Hiring

alumni serves dual purposes: current students can see what they can become and the PEP is

creating more pathways to success for those who participate in their programming. Alumni

should also address that obtaining education outside the prison walls is in fact daunting, but

feasible. The earlier an individual knows that continuing their degree on the outside will be

more of a struggle, the more equipped they can be to plan accordingly.

Early Motivation and Reality Checks on Education on the Outside

Accompanying this should be classes that teach skills that can be transferable across areas of

employment and in one’s professional and personal life. This includes a constructivist

6
approach that focuses on problem solving and project/time management that can be utilized

as a person builds their life on the outside.

As soon as a student chooses a degree and major, they should be made fully aware of the

potential discrimination they may face based on having a criminal conviction. This is

something the DOE is actively debating. The key is informed decision-making. No one

should be barred from studying something that could result in a career where a criminal

conviction is a problem as that individual may be able to break the glass ceiling. At the same

time, interviewees spoke about never having been told they would need to go through

licensing processes that required obtaining a lawyer and accruing massive fees. Barriers to

obtaining degrees and then corresponding licenses were frustrating and all the more so

when an individual was not made aware of these early on.

Stable housing and employment are immediate needs. For this CCF has established strong

reciprocal referral relationships with organizations that specialize in these areas. It is a

constant goal to centralize this as much as possible even if it is merely one person with an

awareness of the landscape of reentry needs. This person can be housed in the PEP or in a

designated CBO. They should also be offering resources to prepare an individual to acquire

these reentry needs. For example, a CBO should offer career services. While career based

services should include practices like resume and cover letter drafting, it should also help

individuals to characterize what they learned in prison in a positive way, depending on if

they wish to disclose status, as several interviewees reflected they had taken certificate

courses inside but had no idea how to appropriately list and describe them to an employer.

People will have new expenses when they obtain education on the outside. As described,

inside prison most is handled by the PEP, but outside people will need counseling on

navigating financial aid, as well as help with supplies like books and computers.

Interviewees described professors complaining about students completing projects on their

phones. A PEP should not consider an individual to be prepared for college until they have

assessed the resources to which an individual has access to and through grants and/or

partnerships to ensure they are filling any identified gaps.

There is a need for academic counseling that is mindful of the unique challenges faced by

those who are returning to the community. A facilitator from a community-based

organization may set out, for example, what people should bear in mind as they go through

the college-in-prison process, like registration deadlines, drop-out periods, etc. A good CBO

partner will support students to recalibrate their plan according to current demands such as

deciding which semester to enroll in school and determining how many courses to take.

They can also help in reviewing the courses taken within prisons and helping to assure those

credits transfer successfully.

Obtaining Necessary Supports

There are also needs that will emerge that are case-specific. One interviewee described that

during the pandemic many of her fellow justice impacted peers faced food insecurity and so

they worked together to create a food pantry within the school. These types of emerging

needs are the reason we encourage a broad group of stakeholders as well as ongoing

evaluations of needs within the proposed regulatory language.

We recognize that the breadth of comprehensive reentry supports may require that the DOE

establish dedicated funding for PEPs with coalitions of community-based providers to

supplement expenses that may exceed those covered by Pell payments.

7
Establishing Structure and Forgiveness

Many individuals exit prison and wish to take a full course load. They are then disappointed

in themselves if they are unable to do so.

Within the penal system there is extreme structure that can lead to increased anxiety around

autonomy. If skills like project management are taught inside, it will facilitate the competing

demands within reentry. It is not merely all that is involved --from potential child support to

finding housing in a discriminatory market--but how overwhelming one perceives the full

list of tasks before them, especially after leaving an environment where most decisions were

made for them by a correctional institution. 

To aid in such a situation, one interviewee described creating a calendar with time for

commuting, for childcare, and everything else to assess whether taking a course is feasible.

At the same time none of these activities will ever take exactly the time allotted. This is

where the PEP or partner community-based organization must implement trauma-informed

practices and the individual should be taught to forgive themselves. The CDC provides 6

principles of trauma-informed approach: 1) safety; 2) trustworthiness and transparency; 3)

peer support; 4) collaboration and mutuality; 5) empowerment and choice, and; 6) cultural,

historical, and gender issues.

Trauma can manifest in a number of ways. This is not specific to this population. Navigating

a successful reaction that serves as an opportune teaching moment does not require a social

services degree but a practice of empathy and open conversations with individuals. The

principles of working with trauma-affected individuals include normalizing feelings,

assisting in understanding the past and emotional impact, empowering individuals to

manage situations themselves, and helping to understand current challenges in light of past

victimization.

A CBO can help with trauma-related responses and avoid negative interactions with

educational institutions. For example, A CBO can act as an initial sounding board for an

issue that is being brought before an educational institution. Then a student can discover if

their behavior is being dictated as a direct response to the situation at hand or is rooted in a

coping mechanism that should be discussed in a safe space for which there are no

ramifications for acting in any type of manner.

Community Empowers

One of the most important practices is to establish a formerly incarcerated peer community.

Ideally, a PEP can help matriculate an individual into their educational institution so that

they can seamlessly transfer. In this case, the peer community might be an on-campus

student group. However, even if PEP alumni go to other universities the creation of this

space can still be enormously helpful. A safe space allows people to inspire each other and

share what has helped and hurt them.

One interviewee spoke about how they wished to have their own orientation. They found

their traditional student counterparts had learned how to use tools like blackboard and

would have benefited from the opportunity to ask questions without fear of judgment.

Creating an orientation for justice-impacted students is amongst many activities the peer

group could consider providing with the support of the CBO and/or PEP.

8
Advocacy and Creating the Environment You Wish To See

Facilitating individual and systemic advocacy can help turn the negative connotations of

one’s status into a motivating factor. Individuals should be taught to advocate for

themselves and issues that impact their community. A student group supported by a

community-based organization could position themselves to identify common themes and

potential solutions. A harmful barrier that an individual is facing alone can be taken up by

the group. Whether it is sharing how they might fight back against such a barrier or

choosing to take up the cause using traditional tools of advocacy, like petitions and sign-on

letters, there is an instilled sense of purpose. A designated individual should serve to help

advocate on behalf of an incarcerated individual especially as they navigate discriminatory

practices. Educational institutions that operate as PEP should evaluate if they have

discriminatory practices for justice-impacted students and remove them.

Conclusion

_______

The work that is being done now by the U.S. Department of Education will set the tone for

higher education in prison for years to come. It will also influence the policy of all 50 states.

It must reflect the reality, as recognized within the DOE’s own Reentry Framework, that

many people will not graduate inside prison. The regulatory language should require Prison

Education Programs to provide reentry planning so that education can successfully be

completed upon a person’s release. This reflects the intent of Congress, the Department of

Education, and pre-existing Prison Education Programs that all speak of the opportunity

and extraordinary values and benefits that come with providing justice-impacted

populations a college degree.

9