Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

1

 DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

 OFFICE OF POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION

 PRISON EDUCATION PROGRAMS SUBCOMMITTEE

 SESSION 1, DAY 3, MORNING

October 20, 2021

On the 20th day of October, 2021, the

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

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

in the state of New Jersey.
2

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

P R O C E E D I N G S

 MR. WASHINGTON: Good morning, 

everyone, and welcome to our third day. This is our final 

session of the first session of the prison education 

program subcommittee. We have a full agenda today, so I 

want to dive right in. But first I'd like to do just a 

roll call to make sure that we have the subcommittee all 

the members of the subcommittee that are available to 

participate today on the on the virtual table. So, 

Belinda.

 MS. WHEELER: Yes sir, I'm here. Thank 

you.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Kim.

 MS. CARY: Good morning.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Stan. 

 DR. ANDRISSE: Good morning, everyone. 

 MR. WASHINGTON: Dr. McTier. Dr. 

McTier, will you be able to think I see you're at 

attendance, if you're having technical difficulties, 

looks like he's leaving. He'll work with Valerie Lefor to 

resolve them. Marisa. 

 MS. BRITTON-BOSTWICK: Good morning. 

I'm here. 

 MR. WASHINGTON: Good morning. And Dr. 

Paccione.
3

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

 MS. WILSON: I don't see her logged in 

yet. I will let you know when she does.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Okay, thank you and 

Terrell Blount cannot join us today for the morning or 

afternoon session. So today, we're going to finish the 

definition of Prison Education Program other than the 

best interest piece. And then we have one more disclosure 

to look at. And so I want to spend about an hour on that. 

So hopefully, by 11, we can transition over to the best 

interest discussion. And then we'll talk about that for 

about two hours. And then at for the final hour of our 

subcommittee meeting today, I would like to go back 

through the entire regulation and get those temperature 

checks that I talked about. We hadn't done them 

throughout. But I want to just get a temperature check 

for if there are any outstanding issues that the 

Department should consider when we're preparing 

amendatory language for the second session for you all to 

consider. And then the last few minutes before we before 

we finish today, we'll talk about the report a little 

more, I have a little more information to provide you for 

the report. So Vanessa, with that said, does anybody have 

any questions before we get started?

 MS. WILSON: Aaron, Dr. McTier signed 

back in. Can we just check in make sure he has ability to 
4

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

open up his video and microphone? It looks like he may 

not. Um, Dr. McTier, can you please email Val Valerie, so 

we can get this fixed?

 MR. WASHINGTON: And that would be 

Valerie Lefor. 

 MS. MCARDLE: Also, we have Stan who 

would like to ask something.

 DR. ANDRISSE: Yeah so just in 

relation to Aaron asking if, if we had questions opening 

up. In regards to the report and the reporting out to the 

full committee, and language. Is there we would like to 

provide, I mentioned to you that I wanted to provide some 

language. But does that have to be provided by closing 

day today or you know, the full committee won't meet 

again till the beginning of November, so do we have time 

to provide some language suggestions, even after our 

session today?

 MR. WASHINGTON: Yes, you do. The

report out we anticipate for the November session will be 

a high level overview of what we discussed. It will not 

be the committee's final recommendation, it will not be 

the start of the subcommittee's final recommendation to 

the main committee. It will just be a high level overview 

of what transpired during the subcommittee meetings for 

those main committee members that weren't able to view 
5

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

the subcommittee meetings. And that's, that's kind of 

what we were thinking for the November meeting. So you 

can still provide us with those recommendations after the 

meeting today, tomorrow, next week, just try you know, 

the Department will be next week really working hard to 

update the amendatory language based on what we've heard 

here. So the sooner that you can get us those 

recommendations, the better.

 DR. ANDRISSE: Good and we mentioned 

the first day about this subcommittee deciding on who 

might present that report to the full committee of 

question about and I you know, I volunteered and Belinda 

volunteer to help as well. And we can you know, maybe 

make sure the committee is okay with that. But the other 

question is, you know if it is Belinda and I, for 

instance, are one of you from the Department helping out 

as well or, you know, what will be your role, for 

instance, Aaron and that report out to the full 

committee?

 MR. WASHINGTON: Well, the 

recommendation is the sub subcommittees recommend to the 

main committee. Keep in mind, the Department of Education 

does have a vote on the main committee. So the Federal 

Negotiator Jennifer Hong, does have a vote on the main 

committee, but the recommendation is directed to the 
6

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

subcommittee. Of course, the Department has provided a 

general framework of what our thoughts were leading into 

this. So the subcommittee can take that into 

consideration. But if.

 DR. ANDRISSE: I guess just more 

specifically, like as we report to the full committee, if 

there's questions, are we is it just solely like Belinda 

and I's responsibility to answer the questions or will 

you chime in to answer like questions that may come up 

about, you know, the subcommittee and its recommendation?

 MR. WASHINGTON: Yes, I can be there 

as I will be there as a technical adviser, to provide any 

responses on behalf of the Department. Jennifer Hong as 

the Federal Negotiator will also be there to provide 

answers and but it is our intention to assist with not 

only helping to develop the high level report for the 

November session, The report for the actual 

recommendation for the main committee in December-- the 

Department, you know, is ready to assist in any way. As I 

mentioned before, we've seen 45 page reports , you know, 

and the amendatory language for the subcommittee 

recommendation. We've seen PowerPoint presentations in 

the amendatory language, we've seen dialogue in the 

amendatory language kind of like an interview style, you 

know, dialogue in the amendatory language for the report 
7

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

out. So really that part you can be creative about, of 

course, we have to have the amendatory language for the 

main committee to consider. But the actual way that you 

report that-- is you and Belinda can get creative and the 

Department will assist in in any way, and thank you, 

Stan. So let's move over to. Vanessa, would you be able 

to post the inventory language, we're going to start with 

paragraph 11 of the definition of a Prison Education 

Program. Thank you, Vanessa. So here we are mirroring, 

this, paragraph 11 is about the process for an 

institution, a postsecondary student applying to the 

Department for approval of the first Prison Education 

Program at the first two additional locations. So 

yesterday, we talked about what an accrediting agency 

will do, and now today, in paragraph 11, we're going to 

talk about what the actual postsecondary institution will 

do. So that first paragraph is highlighting that you will 

have to apply for the first two additional locations--

the first prison education program at the first two 

additional locations, and there're some cross references 

in there. I talked a lot about direct assessment 

yesterday and we tried to mirror this after the direct 

Assessment Program regulations as well. So 600.7 the 

cross reference is we've already talked about that. 

That's the waiver. Following the Secretary's initial 
8

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

approval of the Prison Education Program, the additional 

Prison Education Program at the same location may be 

determined to be eligible without further approvals from 

the Secretary. And so that's just saying that as long as 

the program is in compliance with 600.7, which is the 

waiver of the 25% waiver that we talked about 600.10 and 

that's the requirement that you apply for the first 

program at the first two additional locations. 600.20, 

C1, that's, that's if you want to add an additional 

location, you, if the school is under provisional 

certification, or if they're under any cash monitoring, 

they would have to actually apply to the Secretary before 

they can add an additional location. So there's some 

extra requirements around there. And then 600.21 is that 

they report that subsequent location to the Secretary. So 

after you've had your first Prison Education Program at 

your first two additional locations approved, as long as 

you're in compliance with these other cross referenced 

regulations, you don't have to apply for approval 

anymore. And then under that, you'll see what that 

application will entail. I won't read everything, I'll 

just give you a kind of a high level overview. And so the 

first thing is, you know, you would apply to the 

Department by describing your educational program, you 

will provide the documentation of approval by the 
9

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

accrediting agency or the state approval agency, you will 

provide the name of the correctional facility that the 

institution is proposing to partner with, then the 

Department is providing the methodology, including any 

thresholds, benchmarks, standards, data or metric that 

the Bureau of Prisons used for the determination. 

Vanessa, if you can scroll down a little bit. And you'll 

provide some information on the types of services that 

will be provided to the students, including, you know, 

tutoring, and counseling and reentry counseling, 

affirmative acknowledgement that the segregation was 

wrong approval, we'll see that in paragraph 12. We 

haven't actually looked at that paragraph yet, but under 

the circumstances under which the Secretary can withdraw 

approval. And you'll also have to provide affirmative 

acknowledgement that you agree to submit an annual report 

as required by the statute every year. So those are the 

components of the application for the first program at 

the first two additional locations. And again, after 

that, you will not have to apply, well, I'll stop there. 

There is a kind of attenuated application that will 

happen after that for subsequent programs but we'll talk 

about that momentarily. I want to pause there for 

questions.

 MS. MCARDLE: Sorry, I was on mute 
10

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

Dr. McTier.

 DR. MCTIER: I was gonna say this is 

this is on par with what we currently do with getting the 

accreditation, so I see no issues with this. My only 

concern is on or thought is on letter E with the reentry 

counseling. Let me see it says, the information about the 

types of services offered to admitted students including 

orientation, tutoring, and academic and reentry 

counseling. So interesting enough, we've kind of ran into 

an issue about offering reentry services on the inside. 

So I'm wondering, could this not be a requirement, the 

reentry counseling component, because some DOCs will not 

allow the educational institution to do that? Can we make 

that an optional if they're able to get approval from 

their specific facility or whatnot? I just want to make 

sure that we're not setting up programs that are not 

equipped to offer reentry solutions or counseling to 

students.

 MS. MCARDLE: Stan.

 DR. ANDRISSE: Good morning, again, 

everyone. It's exciting to be here on day three with you 

all. Um, yeah, I would say Dr. McTier, I would, you know, 

have two perspectives on what you mentioned. I think, you 

know, from the program director perspective, I have heard 

also, that it's challenging to have that component. And 
11

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

as you mentioned, there's a DOC component that I, that I 

that I am going to offer a few words on that piece here 

in a second. But I think, you know, I wouldn't be a 

proponent of including this, in maybe a way to think 

about it is that there should be a partnership with the 

community organization, you are correct for it, you know, 

you are correct in what you say, and that, you know, the 

education institutions are really equipped, that's not 

what they were designed for. That's not what they 

historically know how to do in terms of providing reentry 

services, but it should then, you know, fall into the 

hands of organizations and entities that are, that is the 

purpose of what they do. You know, for instance, you 

know, what our program brings to the mix. I think maybe 

it should be added that there should be an impetus for 

educational institutions to partner with entities that 

that is their expertise, in terms of reentry. But leaving 

it out is that challenge, you know, so once the person 

comes home, how do we continue to provide them support, 

to help them continue to, you know, continue their 

education, but also just to do all the other things that 

they also need to do in order to continue their 

education? So I think it is a valuable piece to have 

there to say that we need to be programs need to be 

thinking about it, whether they do it themselves is a 
12

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

question that I'm hearing from you. And I agree that you 

know, education institutions should not be providing 

reentry services. A reentry organization should be 

providing the reentry services.

 MS. MCARDLE: Belinda. 

 MS. WHEELER: Yes, thank you for that. 

I appreciate both my colleagues comments there. First of 

all, I just wanted to say that I think that it's great 

that the Department is making sure that as we're 

transitioning from, you know, just Second Chance Pell to 

Pell For All, that this is going to be the formula that's 

going to be used to onboard educational institutions. As 

someone who started a program prior to my role at Vera, 

Dr. McTier, I 100%, understand what you're saying there. 

It is a challenge with what has happened with some of the 

Second Chance Pell programs and those that aren't in 

Second Chance Pell but are servicing students who are 

currently incarcerated. I do think I do think this is a 

great opportunity, just as again, we're having all of 

these entities come together in ways that we haven't seen 

before, at least in since 1994, if at all and ever in 

this kind of capacity. So while it may indeed be a 

challenge for an educational institution to think of 

reentry counseling, I think that this is part of that, 

you know, as we get to those other parts of this, this 
13

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

statutory language and you know, amendatory language, 

that we're trying to show all entities that this is a 

perfect opportunity to really be thinking about reentry 

counseling. And both corrections and educational 

institutions with community partners, having a 

conversation about what that will actually look like. So 

I have to kind of say that I see myself more in alignment 

with Stan on this particular thing, because I think it 

and that's what we did at our at my former institution 

was to work with a community partner in this space. And 

it's been while I was there, it was so much better

because we had that community partner. And I think it's, 

I think this proactive, I think this is proactive, and I 

feel like it's a win for the students to make sure that 

they're getting more voices or more contextual 

information as they look to reenter into the community. 

So I am more of an advocate of keeping that in there. 

Thank you.

 MS. MCARDLE: Aaron.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you, Sophia. I 

also wanted to add to the response, Dr. McTier, I think, 

under the approval, under the determination of best 

interest by the Bureau of Prisons, the State Department 

of Corrections, there is language in there that states 

that, you know, the Bureau of Prisons is going to 
14

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

determine whether the institution offers relevant 

academic and career counseling services to incarcerated 

individuals while they're confined or incarcerated in 

advance of reentry, and upon release. And so there is a 

requirement that these things be also evaluated, you 

know, by the Bureau of Prisons, to ensure that, you know, 

that these services are being offered to students. So I 

think that's another reason why we would want to keep 

that language in there.

 MS. MCARDLE: Dr. McTier.

 DR. MCTIER: So just to clarify, I'm 

not saying remove it totally, I do think it needs to be 

there. And I do think reentry services should be added. 

My concern is that we're saying that you have to provide 

these things, especially for those small programs who 

don't even have the manpower or the resources to even 

provide the reentry services. I just want to make sure 

that it's flexible that you I just don't want it to be 

hardcore, you have to do these things. Because again, 

we're going to set up a lot of programs for failure who 

can even provide those reentry services as or solutions 

because of the relationship with the DOC the location of 

the state that they're in. So I just want that little bit

of flexibility. I don't want to remove it, I do think 

that there should be partnership with the community. I 
15

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

agree with both of my colleagues in that in that respect. 

Just being on this side of the house, I'm running into 

issues and I see that you know, many programs are running 

into issues on trying to provide the educational 

component, and then going and trying to provide the 

reentry component and based off you know, conversations 

that I've had with the DOC, the reentry more so is 

aligned with supervision and surveillance and I just want 

to be careful about they're not In expectation of 

reentry, and the educational knowledge and expectation of 

reentry. I think is on two different wavelengths and 

those are my concerns.

 MS. MCARDLE: Aaron.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you. I think we 

also have the first part of the paragraph says that under 

romanette two it says the Prison Education Program 

application must provide information satisfactory to the 

Secretary that includes--but it appears to me that the 

regulation does provide some flexibility. If an 

institution were to apply to the Department and say that, 

you know, the prison, local jailer from the facility is 

prohibiting us from providing reentry counseling here, 

but the actual prison is going to provide a reentry 

counseling, that could be something that the Department

could consider. But I want to keep moving forward 
16

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

because, you know, we only have until 11. So if, if, if I 

see more hands up, but I don't want us to get too caught 

up on this piece, because we do have a lot to get through 

today.

 MS. MCARDLE: Stan.

 DR. ANDRISSE: Yeah, I just wanted to, 

again, advocate for the inclusion of a clause where 

they're upfront there is this building of coalition 

partners, to where a community based partner that does 

reentry, is, you know, as you're, as you're putting these 

requirements here, there could be an additional point 

that there should be a community based partner that is 

involved that that is that that is connected to the 

delivery, particularly, you know, providing support for 

reentry. So I think, I mean, that that is this idea of 

providing or creating in the language, the need for a 

coalition or advisory group of stakeholders. And I think, 

you know, it can serve the purpose in this regard to 

where it is not the educational institution providing the 

reentry services. It is a community based organization 

that has expertise in doing that, who's providing the 

services. And if it's written that that has to be in 

there, then you know it both, I think there's benefits on 

both the education, you know, Dr. McTier, a program such 

as yours wouldn't have to do it, you would just have to 
17

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

connect with a partner who does do it.

 MS. MCARDLE: Dave.

 MR. MUSSER: Thanks for all those

comments, and thanks, Stan, for that last suggestion. I 

do want to be careful, I want to make sure that everyone 

understands that this is the part of the regulations 

where the Department is doing a check of the how the 

program was approved by other entities. So if we want to 

incorporate Stan, your suggestion here, I think we would 

need to add a requirement that they submit the 

documentation that that partnership, had done that work 

and had done the approval, etc. So this is our way of 

just making sure all of those things happened.

 DR. ANDRISSE: And that's what I would 

be in favor of. Thank you, David.

 MS. MCARDLE: Aaron.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Okay. so let's move 

on to the next section. That's romanette three. And so if 

the institution is no longer required to submit an 

application to the Department, because it has gotten 

approval of the first prison education program at the 

first two additional locations, romanette three will be 

the process by which they submit subsequent applications 

to the Department. So they would submit documentation 

from the accrediting agency, noting that the institution 
18

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

complies with paragraph (o)(7) I believe (o)(7) is about 

the initiated adverse action. So there are no initiated 

actions. If they, did they have initiated adverse action,

they can't start a prison education program. Or if they 

already have prison education programs, they'd have to 

create a teach out plan. And they also don't have any 

final adverse actions. I think we probably should add in 

there, that's just a note for the Department itself to 

add in there that you don't have any adverse actions 

within the last five years, as required by law, and then 

they also would have to submit documentation, noting that

they weren't subject to any actions by the state to 

revoke the license or authority to operate within the 

last five years either. So essentially, an approval by 

the accrediting agency and approval by the state 

authorizing agency. And the other piece, is obviously the

Department piece, but we would be responsible for making 

sure there were no emergency actions, suspension

determinations against the institution in the last five 

years. Well, so that's what the Department will be 

looking at. And then also, Vanessa if you can scroll back

up just a little bit. I talked about a little earlier, 

just that, under paragraph 11, CFR section point seven 

600 points and 62 point 26 point 21. They also have to 

comply with the sections, the waiver, getting approval if 
19

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

they're under heightened cash monitoring, and also 

reporting to the Department. So you can scroll back down, 

Vanessa, I'll pause there to chat about that, for the 

subcommittee to provide comments on it.

 MS. MCARDLE: I'm not seeing any 

hands. 

 DR. ANDRISSE: What- 

 MS. MCARDLE: Wait there's Stan.

 DR. ANDRISSE: I'm sorry. This is just 

a tech. What number are we on here?

 MR. WASHINGTON: So it's little 

romanette three. So where Vanessa has highlighted it--So 

for the second or subsequent location to fulfill the 

requirements.

 DR. ANDRISSE: What is the full number 

of the location that we're at?

 MR. WASHINGTON: Oh 11, paragraph 11, 

then romanette three.

 MS. MCARDLE: Belinda.

 MS. WHEELER: Thank you. I just wanted 

to say that I think that this is excellent guard rails 

again, as we're opening this up in unprecedented numbers 

that we've seen. I do want to mention that I think this 

is a good moment of pause for educational institutions 

that want to be in this space, that they are bringing the 
20

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

resources to the table. And, you know, again, encouraging 

that whole idea of community partners, grants and things 

of that nature. This, this is clearly showing that, you 

know, while institutions under the experiment, 

educational institutions might have allowed a professor, 

for example, to have a PEP project of, hey, let's go into 

the prison space, an institution has just allowed that 

one professor to do all the work, that, you know, the 

Department is making a very strong position here that, 

you know, experiments or anything else have now finished, 

we're taking a very formalized approach to this. And you 

know, everyone who wants to be at this table needs to 

understand that there are checks and balances in place. 

So I just wanted to say that I think that this is great, 

great language, which is, you know, definitely serving 

the students best interest to make sure that they're 

protected, because we must make sure that we protect the 

students. So thank you for adding this language. 

 MS. MCARDLE: Aaron.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you, Belinda. 

Yeah, I mean, do we have any other, any other comments on 

this, otherwise we can move forward?

 MS. MCARDLE: I see no other hands.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Okay, thank you, 

Sophia. Okay, so the next paragraph refers to the reports 
21

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

of the Department of Education. The statute requires 

institutions to submit an annual report, it actually 

requires the Department to submit a report to Congress as 

well. But here we're talking about the report that the 

institutions will submit to the Department of Education. 

So we're proposing that we will define the requirements 

of the report in a Federal Register Notice or a Dear 

Colleague letter or -- so we're proposing not to regulate 

on each individual component of the report, and that 

would provide the Department flexibility to adjust to any 

changing data elements that we might need in the future. 

That will provide the Department flexibility in being 

able to determine different data elements or, things that 

we would need in order to provide a comprehensive report 

to the public and to Congress. So some of the things that 

will be likely included in the report are examining in 

custody outcomes and post release outcomes, attainment of 

postsecondary degree or credential, the safety in the law 

regarding penal institutions with prison education 

programs, the size of the waiting list, the extent to 

which individuals continue their education post release, 

employment and earnings outcomes information, rates of 

recidivism, and extent to which relevant career services 

are offered to those participating in the prison 

education programs. But again, we didn't want to codify 
22

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

all of those things in regulation, because we also in the 

Federal Register Notice or the subregulatory guidance, 

want to provide more guidance on how institutions will 

submit that information to the Department. We talked a 

little about verification yesterday and if any of you 

have seen our annual verification notice, our annual 

deadline dates notice, we provide a lot of information 

for institutions in there. So we say, well, the student 

has to submit their, let's say their tax information, but 

we provide a process how they do it, we provide 

information on tax filers versus nontax filers. And so it 

just provides us a space to provide information. And if 

you've seen that notice, it slightly changes every year, 

because we're able to adapt to different changes in IRS 

systems and when we get feedback from the community, 

we're able to make those changes as well. So I will pause 

there for comment.

 MS. MCARDLE: Belinda.

 MS. WHEELER: I hope I don't sound 

like a broken record here. I think that this is another 

really good piece that ED is putting in here. I like that

there's that level of flexibility, as myself and some 

colleagues had mentioned yesterday, there are some data 

points that, you know, we may perhaps be a little bit 

nervous about, you know, like, how might that data be 
23

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

used or things of that nature. And I think the idea of 

just kind of having, you know, a broad like report here 

without, as Aaron had mentioned, like those statutes of 

certain things-- I think it allows both the Department

and also educational institutions accredited as 

corrections-- You know, as we look at how this rolls out, 

we see that kind of flexibility. So I just wanted to go 

on record from the Consumer Advocacy Organization 

standpoint and say that I think that this is a good idea 

that we're collecting this data with the report and then 

we also have some of that flexibility to see how things 

move forward. So, thank you.

 MS. MCARDLE: Aaron.

 MR. WASHINGTON: So, I wanted to make 

sure that we have provided an opportunity to speak to 

anybody who hasn't had a chance to speak. I don't want to 

call out any specific subcommittee members. But this is 

something you know, the report is something that the 

institution would submit. So if anybody who has 

background at a postsecondary institution or wanted to 

provide, you know, comments on that, that would be 

welcomed by the Department. 

 MS. MCARDLE: I don't see any oh, 

Dave.

 MR. MUSSER: This is not in response 
24

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

to Aaron's question, but I did want to give a little bit 

of context for the group about what we might collect at 

the Department. Mostly because as you guys saw in when we 

went through the statutory provisions earlier, there are 

a host of things that Congress asked the Department to 

collect and include in an annual report about prison 

education programs. Many of those things the Department

will have through our own internal administrative data 

collections and that's things like the amount of Pell 

grant funds received in a prison education program, the 

field that the prison education program is in which we 

will use the zip code, and then in some for some things 

and subsequent enrollment, which we've talked about in 

another case, we'll have that through NSLDS. So there's a 

what we would require schools to report for this purpose 

would be anything other than those administrative data 

items that you guys that the financial aid office are 

already submitting. So that I just wanted to make that 

part clear that we're asking for the things in part to 

help us do this report that on the areas that we're 

required to report on, but exactly as Aaron mentioned, in 

part so that we have the ability to adapt our data 

collection to the data that's available, the data that's 

most useful, the data that the field is asking for.

 MS. MCARDLE: Kim.
25

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

 MS. CARY: Thank you for that. I think 

this is a good opportunity to stop and for anyone 

listening in with institutions, that might not be the 

financial aid office, to remember that the financial aid 

programs are a college responsibility. And so bringing 

through academics all of the different research offices, 

and things like that are much, much necessary, 

collaboration and should work together to collect the 

data. It doesn't always happen across campuses easily. At 

ours, it does, so very thankful for that. But just an 

opportunity for institutions to know this is an 

opportunity moving forward to work collaboratively, and 

to provide information to make this successful.

 MS. MCARDLE: I see no other hands.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Okay. We can move to, 

let's see, paragraph 13. So this paragraph gives the 

Secretary the ability to revoke approval of a school to 

operate a prison education program at a correctional 

facility. And our authority, we're saying that if the 

institution violated any terms of this section-- meaning 

providing materially inaccurate information about the 

definition of a prison education program, so 668.80, or 

that the information that the institution submitted to 

the Secretary, the accrediting agency, the state approval 

agency, the State Department of Corrections, or Bureau of 
26

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

Prisons, or the other oversight entities-- that just 

provides the Secretary the means to withdraw approval or 

to withdraw approval of the institution to offer a prison 

education program.

 MS. MCARDLE: Belinda.

 MS. WHEELER: Great, thank you. I 

don't have any problems with how this language is 

written. I think it's crystal clear. I just wanted to ask 

a clarifying question. So if indeed that situation 

happens, does the Department then go back to that policy 

of like the teach out plan to kind of make sure that 

like, you know, if, if it does, indeed need to come in, 

again, thinking of the students, so that if an 

institution, you know, does get that approval revoked, 

that there will be some kind of teach out plan or 

something in place just to make sure that the students 

are protected? I just wanted to make sure otherwise, I'm 

very happy with the language. 

 MS. MCARDLE: Aaron.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Vanessa, can you add 

a comment bubble there to just to potentially add 

language regarding a teach out or wind down process in 

the event that the Secretary withdraws approval of an 

institution to offer for the education program?

 MS. GOMEZ: Can you repeat that Aaron?
27

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

 MR. WASHINGTON: I'm sorry. 

 MS. GOMEZ: Can you repeat that again? 

 MR. WASHINGTON: Oh, I say potentially 

add language regarding teach out and or wind down for 

when the Secretary withdraws approval. And I think that 

kind of ties a little bit back to the waiver or withdraw 

we provided. I believe, a year after an award you're 

after the withdraw for them to wind down the program. So 

it doesn't make sense. Withdraw put a withdraws between 

the Secretary and approves. withdraws approval withdraws 

approval, yeah, yep. Thank you Vanessa. How does it that 

look, Belinda for our suggestion?

 MS. WHEELER: Yes, thank you I just 

wanted to make sure that you know we've got it written 

there so that again the students are protected if you 

know if this situation does occur, thank you.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Okay.

 MS. MCARDLE: No other hands. 

 MR. WASHINGTON: Okay. 

 MS. MCARDLE: Just a moment, I think I 

just Stans hand go up. Stan.

 DR. ANDRISSE: Yeah, this is more so 

in relation to wanting to go back and I'm just still 

grappling with the idea that all of this is just how we 

are expanding Second Chance Pell. You know, it's not this 
28

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

is not Pell For All this is not creating, we're just 

discussing how we expand Second Chance Pell in that I 

mean, that's essentially what this is. And you know, what 

would bar us from saying that in order to be eligible for 

Pell, that you have to be part of a program offering a 

prison education program? And then also just adding 

another requirement of another way that you can be 

eligible for Pell on the inside. So we still meet the 

statutory requirement of defining what a prison education 

program is. But we add a piece that says that Pell can 

also be attained in some other fashion. And I know this 

goes back up to some of the definition that we were 

talking about earlier. But I feel like that is still a, 

you know, something that is on my mind.

 MS. MCARDLE: Aaron.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you for that, 

Stan. Vanessa, do you have the statutory language 

available to project? Thank you, Vanessa. Can you scroll 

down just a bit? I'll tell you when stop you right there. 

Can you highlight paragraph three? It says Pell Federal 

Pell Grant eligibility. So Stan in this it says 

notwithstanding-- subsection a-- in order for a confined 

or incarcerated individual who otherwise meets 

eligibility requirements, and that that section is really 

just talking about all the other stuff, right? High 
29

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

school diploma, everything, you know, of this title to be 

eligible to receive a Federal Pell Grant or section 401. 

That's where the statute authorizes the Federal Pell 

Grant, the individual shall be, shall be, we don't really 

use shall in the regulations, new law, we use must, so 

shall be enrolled or accepted for enrolling in a prison 

education program. So if the individual is incarcerated, 

confined or incarcerated, they would not be eligible for 

a Federal Pell Grant unless the individual enrolled in a 

prison education program. And that's part of the statute.

 DR. ANDRISSE: So is there a way to, 

is there a way to add an and/or to that to where we still 

hold that to be true? And expand on the eligibility? 

Where are my lawyers at?

 MR. WASHINGTON: Yeah, that's what I 

was gonna say. I was gonna call on our General Counsel 

that they wanted to provide a response. The Department’s 

General Counsel.

 DR. ANDRISSE: Like I guess the focus 

is on that shall part. If that is what is, you know, if 

it's written as shall you know, what, how can we work 

with that to expand eligibility? 

 MS. MCARDLE: Steve.

 MR. FINLEY: Yeah, I'm sorry, I, my 

system had frozen up. And I'd had to reboot a moment ago. 
30

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

But, you know, the statute defines what we what we can 

work with, right? It says outer constraints and we cannot 

enlarge the prison education program piece bigger than 

the statute allows us to. So I mean, this is really I, I 

think of this as Congress coming in with a half step to 

open the door for these types of programs. And with all 

these safeguards to see if it works, and hopefully 

because they'll eventually open the door wider. 

 MS. MCARDLE: Aaron.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Vanessa, can we, 

thank you for that, Vanessa. Can we go back to the 

amendatory language? We do have about 15 minutes left. Of 

course, we can, you know, take some more time to talk 

about this if the subcommittee feels as though we should 

stay here. But we want to make sure we get through 

everything today. So Stan, I appreciate your comments. I 

hope that you know, our responses. I hope that you can 

take our responses back and think through more of.

 DR. ANDRISSE: What was that section 

number? Vanessa, do you have that pulled up to where you 

can just say the number?

 MR. WASHINGTON: Just give me one 

second, Stan. It is Section four-- eight, of the Higher 

Education Act, and the paragraph is small. So, and then, 

the sub paragraph is number three, so four--eight—IV--
31

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

four--three. And these are the amendments that the 2021 

Appropriations Bill made to the Higher Education Act. 

 DR. ANDRISSE: Yeah, I appreciate 

that. And I mean, you know, just to wording wise, you 

know, Belinda, I know, you've been using the wording Pell 

For All, I think, for the public, it would be more 

accurate to not use that language as it is not Pell For 

All.

 MS. MCARDLE: Belinda.

 MS. WHEELER: Thank you very much for 

that, Stan. Sorry, I usually use them interchangeably 

between Pell Reinstatement, which reflects the language. 

So yes, I will, I will use Pell Reinstatement. But again, 

I'm just using the language from the FAFSA Simplification 

Act, my friend and I do understand, you know, that there 

are statutes here which are blocking this larger 

expansion. I think I would defer back to the legal 

counsel that just spoke and said that, you know, I think 

that there, you know, we do want this open 100%. And yes, 

I think perhaps me using Pell For All, I probably 

shouldn't just say Pell Reinstatement, but I 

think(inaudible). 

 DR. ANDRISSE: Partial Pell 

Reinstatement and my more accurate viewpoint of it. 

 MS. WHEELER: Yes, sir. Yeah. 
32

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

 DR. ANDRISSE: Full Pell 

Reinstatement.

 MS. WHEELER: Yeah, I understand, my 

friend. So I'll just default to the language. But thank 

you very much for that comment. I appreciate it. 

 MS. MCARDLE: Aaron.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Perhaps when moving 

forward, we can agree to say Pell for confined or 

incarcerated individuals who enroll in a prison education

program. Now that's a lot of language to use. But just so

we can be very specific about what we're talking about, I

will make an effort to refer to it as Pell for confined 

or incarcerated individuals enrolled in the education 

program going forward. Let's move into, but thank you for

your comment, Stan. Let's move into paragraph P. So we're

we can always come back to it, but we have completed a 

review of a definition of a prison education program. So 

now we're going to move into paragraph P. So currently, 

the statute only prohibits those incarcerated in a state 

or federal facility from accessing Pell. There may be 

students right now in local jails and juvenile justice 

facilities accessing Pell eligible programs. And so we 

need to provide those students and those programs, time 

to transition, and institutions time to transition those 

programs to prison education programs. Or if they 
33

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

unfortunately choose not to transition their programs to 

a prison education program, we need to provide them time 

to wind down. This will ensure that students enrolled in 

these programs are not automatically cut off from aid on 

July 1, 2023 when the statute and these regulations will 

go into effect.

The July 1, 2029 date—so we have, for 

institutions operating eligible programs in a 

correctional facility that is not a federal or state 

penal institution--confined or incarcerated individuals--

So we're not talking about prison education programs 

here. We're talking about students right now, that are in

local jails, juvenile justice facilities, anything other 

than a federal or state institution. If they don't meet 

the requirements under paragraph o, the definition of 

prison education program we just talked about, they can 

continue to receive Pell until July 1, 2029, or the 

student reaches their maximum timeframe, their own 

maximum timeframe as defined in the Code of Federal 

Regulations. And that is 150% of the published length of 

the program. So if it's let's say it's a IV year program,

that's six years, or if it's a two year program that 

might be three years, or the student has exhausted their 

Pell eligibility. And we talked about that quite a bit 

about eligibility use and we talked about how Pell is not
34

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

unlimited. There are limits to Pell-- 600% lifetime 

eligibility used or six scheduled awards. And so the 

rationale behind the July 2029 date is that going back to 

that min/maximum timeframe for a typical full time 

bachelor's degree program, there will be a maximum of six 

years. So we want to provide six years after July 1, 

2023. We also say in paragraph number two, that the 

institution would not be permitted to enroll confined or 

incarcerated individuals. And they wouldn't be permitted 

to enroll additional students after July 1, 2023, unless 

the institution converted the program to eligible for the 

education program as defined in paragraph o. And this 

would ensure that institutions do not continue to enroll 

students after July 1, 2023. So I'll pause there.

 MS. MCARDLE: Stan.

 DR. ANDRISSE: Yeah, this this touches 

right on, you know, what I was just mentioning. I mean, 

not only is this not Pell For All, but we're proposing to 

remove Pell eligibility for folks that actually have it 

right now? I mean, I'm, I'm very much, you know, to me, 

that's what it reads as. So people in jails now that are 

able to get Pell under the current, you know, under the 

law that was in place before this was passed, are now 

getting will now not be able to do that after July 1, 

2029. Am I reading that correctly?
35

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

 MR. WASHINGTON: That is correct. That 

is what the law says. If the student as of July 1, 2023, 

students. 

 DR. ANDRISSE: What is the thinking 

behind that? 

 MR. WASHINGTON: The statute states 

that as of July 1, 2023, a student, to access Pell, must 

enroll in a prison education program. What we're doing 

here, is we are ensuring that students enrolled in local 

jails, or juvenile justice facilities, continue to be 

able to access Pell. Because as of July 1, 2023, the 

student would have lost eligibility without this 

regulatory language. So if a student is enrolled in an 

eligible program, that is not a prison education program, 

they will still be able to continue. Stan, if I can, I'm 

sorry, if I can finish Stan, they will still be able to 

continue receiving Pell through July 1 2029. So if you 

enroll a student right now, and if a student is in a 

local jail, and they are in an eligible program, and they 

enroll right now, they will be able to receive Pell all 

the way until July 1, 2029. Or if the student has been 

receiving Pell than they would, if they bumped up against 

their lifetime eligibility, then the statute says they 

can't receive Pell after that. Also, each student has a 

maximum timeframe for how long they can receive Title IV
36

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

aid for a program. And so if they bump up against that 

they will no longer be able to see receive Pell either. 

But those are all statutory requirements. So this 

provision absolutely expands eligibility to ensure that 

students in these situations continue to receive Pell and 

I think our-- Sophia, I apologize, I think we'll let Stan 

respond but then we have Steve Finley, right, who wants 

to ask.

 MS. MCARDLE: And also Dave Musser 

wants to. 

 DR. ANDRISSE: So I mean, this is 

again, would point to a lack of understanding the 

carceral system. When putting this type of wording in 

place. People in jails and juvenile facilities are only I 

mean, most people don't spend it is they're not supposed 

to spend more than a year, oftentimes they do illegally, 

and often in some cases. But even when it's done 

illegally, it's not done, most of people are not in those 

institutions for more than a year to two years, maybe a 

little bit more than that. So to think about someone who

is using Pell right now, they're going to be long out of 

their institution that they were in by 2029. So they're 

no longer I mean, that number of people is small. And 

this is actually restricting, this is now the other 

challenge that is brought in many of my program, folks 
37

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

that run prison education programs can attest to this. 

Most prison education programs don't want to go inside of 

a jail because they know that the population inside jails 

only are there for less than a year. So they can't really 

offer a prison education program with them because 

they're going to be being sent back into the community. 

So what makes most sense for those people is just to 

access regular Pell, and potentially, you know, they may, 

they may be in jail for a couple of months, they may be 

able to, you know, either continue a prison, either 

continue, because they were already in college when they 

got incarcerated so they are somehow maybe attempting to 

continue their education through an online course, or 

through a correspondence course. But they don't have 

access to a prison education program, because most 

providers don't want to mean because of the time limit 

aren't providing that inside of jails. 

 MS. MCARDLE: Steve. Steve you might 

be on mute.

 MR. FINLEY: Thank you. I just think I 

appreciate Stans concerns. I mean, we're limited by what 

we can do within the statute. The provisions that talk 

about trying to maintain access for as long as possible 

under the statute, are just designed to make sure that 

that anyone that is getting those benefits, if they 
38

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

remain incarcerated will continue to do so pretty much 

for as long as we can define them within the limits of 

the statute. And I'll turn this over to David now.

 MS. MCARDLE: Dave.

 MR. MUSSER: Steve and Aaron have 

effectively covered what I had to say. These provisions 

were intended to provide as long as I guess you'd call it 

a runway as we possibly could, given the statutory 

restraints that that we're under. To ensure that 

individuals who are currently in these programs or who 

start one of these programs prior to July 1, 2023, don't 

suffer those consequences based on what the law provides. 

But we don't have a whole lot of flexibility beyond that, 

given what we were handed by Congress.

 MS. MCARDLE: Belinda. Okay, back to 

Stan then.

 DR. ANDRISSE: I slightly disagree 

with that. Because didn't we, in this meeting define what 

a correctional institution is, which we added jail to it? 

So maybe we don't add jail to the definition of a 

correctional institution? I mean, so we're not bound by 

the statutory limit, because we were, it was we are 

deciding what a correctional institution is in the 

language. If we didn't add jail, then they would still be 

eligible. 
39

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

 MS. MCARDLE: Aaron.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Let's go to Belinda, 

I think she's been waiting. 

 MS. MCARDLE: Yeah.

 MS. WHEELER: Thanks for that. I just 

wanted to interject two small things, wearing my previous 

hat as a prison education director, at my institution, we 

were in the process of doing some programming with jails. 

And for what we were doing, those people had not yet been

given a sentence yet. So we were, we were working with 

using traditional Pell monies for those for those 

students anyway. So this particular, this particular data 

like that's listed here, for the program that I had 

started, wouldn't actually be adversely impacting them, 

because we were using traditional Pell funds for those 

people because they hadn't yet been sentenced. Another 

thing, I would just say, this language from my other hat 

that I'm wearing, with Vera representing, you know, well, 

we're not representing, providing technical assistance 

for the Second Chance Pell institutions in this space. If 

this data here isn't listed with this July 1st of 2029, 

the former program that I ran at Claflin would end before 

this period, because we were part of second round of 

Second Chance Pell. And if we didn't go through these 

other things, those students would be caught would be 
40

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

caught out. So from that perspective of Second Chance 

Pell and consumer advocacy groups, this actual additional 

runway, I think, from our perspective, as we're seeing 

this is actually very beneficial for the students, 

because it's giving out a wider window. So I'll just add 

that from my two cents there. Thank you.

 MS. MCARDLE: Dave.

 MR. MUSSER: I think Aaron, did you 

want to say something first?

 MR. WASHINGTON: I just wanted to 

respond to Stan's last question he asked. Can we remove 

jail from the definition of an incarcerated individual? 

And going back to the reference that I gave earlier, the 

44 sub part IV, section 44 the Higher Education Act. 

Congress defines the combined incarcerated individual as 

an means an individual who's serving a criminal sentence 

in a federal state or local, penal institution, prison, 

jail, reformatory work farm, or other criminal or other, 

other similar Correctional Institutions. So based on the 

statutory language, we would not be able to remove jail 

from the definition.

 MS. MCARDLE: Would you rather go to 

Dave or Stan, Aaron?

 MR. WASHINGTON: Go to Dave, because I 

think he had his hand up next. 
41

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

 MS. MCARDLE: Okay.

 MR. MUSSER: And this doesn't change 

anything about Stan's remarks or any of the anything else 

that's been said. But this is a follow on point to what 

the lender mentioned, which is that the prohibition on 

Pell eligibility applies when an individual is currently 

incarcerated in a federal or state penal institution. But 

individuals aren't even considered incarcerated, meaning 

they're eligible for all types of aid, if they're not 

serving a criminal sentence. And the number of programs 

where individuals are serving a criminal sentence in 

local jails and institutions are offering programs in 

those spaces, is quite small according to FSA's data. We 

do collect data from institutions and identify who is 

incarcerated. And it's a small population, it's still in, 

it's still certainly important and it's part of why we 

want to address it here. But most students who are in 

local jails, typically have not yet been sentenced, and 

therefore are fully eligible for Title IV aid if they are 

otherwise meet the requirements.

 MS. MCARDLE: Stan.

 DR. ANDRISSE: I think that that's my 

point, is that we don't want to take that away from them. 

So and to, you know, Aaron, the definition that you read, 

there are people in jails that have been sentenced, and 
42

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

there and that are serving a, you know, a prison, a 

sentence, an incarcerated sentence, then there are people 

in jail, that have not been sentenced, and they are not 

serving. And those individuals, as David just mentioned, 

had always been, had been eligible for Pell. To my 

understanding the way that things are changing, we are 

now taking that away from them. We're now saying that if 

you're in a jail, you have to be in a prison education 

program. Whereas before, David, as you just mentioned, if 

you were in a jail, you weren't sentenced yet, you can 

access Pell, Pell, just like any other person who doesn't 

have a criminal record or who's not confined.

 MS. MCARDLE: Dave.

 MR. MUSSER: So I want to actually 

defer this to OGC. But my understanding based on our 

earlier discussion, and the amendatory text that we were 

looking at for the definition of a confined or 

incarcerated individual, actually stated that they were 

serving a criminal sentence. And so if that factor 

doesn't apply, I don't believe that they would be 

considered ineligible for any kind of Title IV aid.

 DR. ANDRISSE: Okay, that clarifies 

what, Okay, thank you. So that those individuals not 

sentenced will still be as they were before able to 

access Pell under the current language that we have.
43

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

 MS. MCARDLE: Steve.

 MR. FINLEY: Yeah, we'll go back and 

take a look at that and confirm that that's the case. And 

at the risk of stating the obvious, someone who is 

incarcerated only has as much access to use that Pell as 

they are given within the limits of their being confined.

 DR. ANDRISSE: I mean, there's online 

courses and correspondence courses, and if the person was 

currently in school, they can continue using that to, you 

know, despite being small, as you said, David., And 

really, the reason that it's so small, is because there's 

not enough advocacy around letting you know, we work 

inside jails. And we, when we tell people that they're 

eligible, they're like, what? That's not what the word on 

the yard is, is I'm a convict, you know, I can't access 

that. So there's not enough education and knowledge is 

why that number is so small. It's not because the number 

of people who wish and would want to use that is low, 

it's because they don't have the knowledge of that they 

can use it.

 MS. MCARDLE: I see no other hands.

 MR. WASHINGTON: I wanted to move down 

quickly, Vanessa, to one more disclosure that we didn't 

talk about yesterday--there you go 668.43. And so I 

failed to talk about the disclosure yesterday related to 
44

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

the prohibition on any prohibitions on licensor 

employment. So um, so we're looking at six romanette two. 

So, so we're saying an institution that offers an 

eligible prison education program as defined and 668.8, 

if applicable, must make available information upon 

request that confirms that the education is designed to 

lead to licensure, or employment for a specific job or 

occupation. This does not typically involve federal 

prohibitions on licensure or employment of the formerly 

incarcerated in the state in which the correctional 

facilities are located or in the case of a Federal 

Correctional Facility in the state in which the 

individual is confined or incarcerated. So that's just 

another disclosure that we wanted to provide upon request 

from the student, that confirms if they enroll in the 

program, there are no prohibitions on licensure, 

employment, if they, if they take that program. And 

again, here we use that for the Federal Correctional 

Facility because we wanted to make sure that the student 

could request information about the specific state that 

they plan to return to. And not just the state that most 

students will return to. So for instance, though, I'm 

going to find a Federal Correctional Facility and I want 

to return to Maine again but they've determined that most 

students will return to New York, I can request 
45

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

information about Maine and any prohibitions on licensure 

or employment, there.

 MS. MCARDLE: I see no hands.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Alright, so let's 

move into the best interest conversation. So we'll go 

back to the best interest conversation. So Vanessa, if 

you can pull up the chart that I sent you. I sent the 

chart to all the negotiators this morning. Let me get a 

thumbs up if you if you all have received it this 

morning. Think I Stan, Stan you have it? It's also 

projected here. Thank you. Alright, so we've discussed 

continuing education. Correct me if I'm wrong, I think we 

talked about job placements, I think yes. We talked about 

job placement and, and earnings. And so we wanted to move 

to recidivism, and then complete the discussion. And we 

have reserved quite some time to talk about this as a 

conversation and early then we can definitely go back 

through the entire regulation and do our temperature 

checks. But so for recidivism, the rate of low-before I 

start, does anybody have any questions? I kind of 

transitioned, abruptly.

 MS. MCARDLE: I see no hands. Oh, 

wait, sorry, hold on Dr. McTier.

 DR. MCTIER: So this document that 

you're showing on the screen, these are the metrics which 
46

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

the Department of Education is going to be collecting? 

That's my understanding.

 MR. WASHINGTON: So yeah, so these are 

the indicators that the Bureau of Prisons will be using 

to determine whether the program is in the best interest 

of students. And what we're doing here at the 

subcommittee will be defining--will help the Department

in ways that we can define these to provide the Bureau of 

Prisons and State Department of Corrections with 

guidelines, guidance, assistance, with making those 

determinations. And what we've heard throughout --you all 

correct me if I'm wrong, but what we've heard from 

members is that the Bureau of Prisons may not, does not 

have the capacity to do these things. And so we've heard 

support for the Department's position that these will be 

defined because the Department does have the authority to 

define them. But we've heard support for that position. 

And my understanding is that we've also heard support for 

the Department using its own data sources, specifically 

for earnings and continuing education rate for potential 

metrics, and potential cohorts. So that's what we've 

heard. I know there was a little discussion on, you know, 

the institution's role on the job placement rate. But I 

think if there's more conversation about continuing 

education, post release or earnings, we can have that, 
47

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

but I think it'd be beneficial to move through 

recidivism, and completion, so we can make sure we have a 

conversation about those. I'll pause there.

 MS. MCARDLE: Dr. McTier.

 DR. MCTIER: Okay, so if you're 

saying the Bureau of Prisons is going to actually be 

collecting this information? Not the Department of ED?

 MR. WASHINGTON: No, the Department, 

the Department. I'm sorry, for continuing education. We 

talked about using our National Student Loan data system 

to collect that information. And then for earnings, we 

talked about using College Scorecard data, College 

Scorecard information to collect that information. So the 

Department will be the potential data source, the 

Department would be the data source 

 DR. MCTIER: Okay, I just wanted to be 

clear, because you said the Bureau of Prisons will 

(inaudible) I was a little bit confused. I will add this 

and then I'll yield my time. The only concern that I have 

is that we do not actually have a representative from the 

DOC here to discuss. So basically, we you know, we're 

saying that they can't do these things. But it would have 

been really, really nice to as much as it pains me to say 

this, to have them at the table to really discuss their 

capacity or what they can and cannot do. And then you 
48

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

know, just building that potential partnership. I feel 

like we're missing that component in this subcommittee, 

and yeah.

 MS. MCARDLE: Stan.

 DR. ANDRISSE: Yes, I would, I was 

just going to echo the same thing. I think a lot of the 

language has said that the DOC is going to do X, Y, or Z.

And we have and you know, I've mentioned it a couple 

times and I really wasn't directing at Marisa, because 

Marisa is really a partner within the DOC system, but you

know, to have for instance, I believe the organization 

name is called ASCA, the Association of State 

Correctional-- that was their old name, they have a new 

name now, but I do know the director of that, for 

instance, is Anne Precythe, who is the director of DOC in

your state, Terrence, Dr. McTier, in Missouri. But she 

also is the one that oversees this collective of 

correctional leaders. You know, I think having them at 

the table is missing and I, you know, being a member on 

the full committee, I would actually, I'm interested in 

proposing to the, you know, the full committee when we 

get back, that we add this DOC member to our committee, 

as a full voting member has that ability to do that, to 

my understanding. So that is something that I will be 

bringing back to the full committee. But as Dr. McTier 
49

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

mentioned, we're missing that voice, and we're having 

them do a lot and they're not at the table. 

 MS. MCARDLE: Aaron.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Stan, I think we I 

mentioned in the email that I sent to the subcommittee, 

that we won't be adding members to the subcommittee, but 

with the full support of the subcommittee, we can invite 

individuals to address the subcommittee. Oh, I'm sorry. 

Alright. It sounded like you said you wanted to add to 

the full committee, I apologize.

 MS. MCARDLE: Stan.

 DR. ANDRISSE: I was just going to 

make the correction that it was that bringing that to the 

full committee and understanding that committee, you 

know, we had that conversation in the full committee-- of 

bringing on a new negotiator. And it you know, we have 

the according to the protocol, the ability to do that. 

And I'm just mentioning that I will be bringing that to 

the full committee in our November meeting. Because I do 

think it's, you know, we're missing out on that, in this 

particular conversation. I mean, a lot of the things that 

we've been saying, Dr. McTier and other partners working

with the DOC, we are very capable. But it would be great 

to have their perspectives on it. 

 MS. MCARDLE: Aaron.
50

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

 MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you for that 

clarification Stan. That was my mistake. I need to admit, 

I didn't, I thought you were referring to the 

subcommittee, so I apologize for that. So what I'd like 

to do is move into recidivism and talk about talk a 

little bit about that and get the subcommittee's 

thoughts. The statutory language requires that the Bureau 

of Prisons and State Department of Corrections take into 

account the recidivism rate when determining if the 

programs are in the best interest of students. And a 

potential metric for that would be the percentage of 

formerly incarcerated individuals who are re-incarcerated 

within a certain number of years. Some of the data 

sources the Department is thinking about-- under WIOA 

state's report on their rates of recidivism. And that 

data may vary from state to state. There is some 

information from the Bureau of Justice Statistics. And 

there's also some information from the US Sentencing 

Commission. I also researched recidivism for the federal 

system. And then we'll be looking at potential cohorts. 

The Department would seek to include only students who 

will be released and may require additional reporting. 

I'll pause there.

 MS. MCARDLE: Dr. McTier.

 DR. MCTIER: You know, I understand 
51

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

this is statutory so, note that I know that. But I’ve got 

to go on record and say that collecting recidivism rates 

has nothing to do with education and should not be used 

as a metric for understanding and or trying to get a 

glimpse of whether or not a higher education and prison 

program is doing their job or doing the right thing or 

providing that quality education. We cannot control what 

happens once a person leaves a facility. A higher 

education institution can't do that. And then trying to 

track recidivism rates when we know that you know, people 

--probation or parole is revoked not for new crimes, but 

just for technicalities and just other areas. This is not 

the right metric to be collecting. It has nothing to do 

with education. And I want to go on record saying that 

I'm not in support of having recidivism rates as a 

metric, a part of any part of the educational component.

 MS. MCARDLE: Stan.

 DR. ANDRISSE: Yes, I would concur 

with Dr. McTier that, you know, in terms of evaluating 

the quality of a program, I think I had given an example 

earlier of how recidivism rate doesn't quite touch on the 

quality of a program. I was gonna ask about, is there a 

way to maybe color code some of the data sources so to 

say like, so we can see which ones are being the data 

sources, the Department of ED, which ones are from the 
52

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

Department of Corrections, which ones are from the 

educational institution that's responsible for getting 

that data?

 MR. WASHINGTON: We can try and work 

on that after lunch. I don't want to put.

 DR. ANDRISSE: Yes, that's fine. 

Because and then just to also like, which ones are DOC 

required and which ones are the educational institution? 

Which ones are you leaning on the DOC to get? Which ones 

are you leaning on the educational institution to get or 

provide?

 MR. WASHINGTON: Well, we would like 

your feedback on that. So what we heard in our initial 

discussions is that the Department of Education for at 

least the earnings and continuing education, sounded like 

the subcommittee was in general agreement that the 

Department of Education will be the data source for those 

two indicators. Job placement, you see there we say the 

Department of Education can also use College Scorecard 

information. So to do that we also got information from 

the subcommittee that the institution may play a role in 

that these are all proposals. We're going to go back and 

work on amendatory language for you for the section of 

the regulation-- before the second subcommittee meeting. 

And so these are not concrete-- these are proposals. And 
53

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

it's really all a proposal Stan, and honestly, until the 

main committee votes on it.

 MS. MCARDLE: Dr. McTier.

 DR. MCTIER: So just a point of 

clarification and something to consider. What does the 

Department consider as recidivism? And then what will be

collected with that understanding? What is the timeframe 

after release that the Department will be collecting that 

information? So is it going to be once a person is 

released? Is it going to be the first three months, six 

months a year? Is it going to be every time that that 

individual returns back to a confined facility? This one, 

I think there needs to be a level of clarity here. Again, 

just pointing back to my other note, I don't think this 

is a good metric. But I think having this information, 

yeah, is needed.

 MS. MCARDLE: Aaron, did you want to 

clarify, or should we go to David?

 MR. WASHINGTON: Let's go to David 

first and then I'll. 

 MS. MCARDLE: Dave?

 MR. MUSSER: Okay, sure. This is just 

a clarification. Who would be responsible for providing 

data that would enable us to calculate these rates. I 

think, as Aaron mentioned, what we've talked about so far 
54

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

is that the Department would be in large part responsible 

for providing the data for the continuing education rate, 

the earnings rate and the completion rate. But there's a 

caveat, and that is that row number five on the potential 

cohort exclusions. WE don't have data on individuals who 

are released. So if we want to exclude those individuals 

from any of the continuing education or the earnings, we 

would need to get that information either directly from 

correctional agencies or the penal institutions or 

through the schools who would have to obtain it from I 

believe the penal institutions themselves.

 MS. MCARDLE: Aaron.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Yeah, and just a 

follow up on Dr. McTier's question, about the timeframe, 

what is recidivism? I think that we wanted to get the 

subcommittee's ideas on support around these. And that's 

the purpose of allotting two hours for the discussion 

today to get your feedback on what the timeframe should 

be. If you have a definition that we should be including 

for recidivism, or in the potential cohort exclusions, 

what students to exclude? I think that's, that's the 

whole point of the discussion is to get your expertise 

and feedback on how the Department can draft the 

amendatory language for you all for the next session.

 DR. MCTIER: Can I interject just to 
55

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

answer that point, to provide clarity, is that okay? 

 MS. MCARDLE: Sure. 

 DR. MCTIER: So, but I think what will 

also be helpful is to hear what the Department considers 

as recidivism. Because you all propose this so we will I 

least want to know where your thoughts are. And so that 

way we can kind of work through that point. Instead of 

just going in based off our opinions, we at least want to 

see where you all (inaudible) are at with this metric.

 MS. MCARDLE: Aaron, did you want to 

respond or should we move to Belinda?

 MR. WASHINGTON: Let's go to Stan and 

then Belinda. I think they've been waiting.

 MS. MCARDLE: Let's go Belinda, next 

and then Stan.

 MS. WHEELER: Thank you very much for 

that. Yeah, um, recidivism rates--this is something that 

we're definitely in the field trying to get away from. I 

understand it’s statutory. So we've obviously got to deal

with it in some capacity. And I appreciate the 

opportunity for us to try to help guide how this actually

happens. I would be very interested, I know obviously, 

you know, continuing this conversation today, but also 

I'd be interested to see some other ways that the 

Department might want to reach out to other you know, 
56

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

community groups or organizations that report in this 

space. This data though, it’s unfortunate that we need 

it, because it's statutory, is not invasive, towards the 

people that we're trying to, you know, to serve in the 

space. So, you know, one of the things that, you know, I 

definitely want to make sure that we're not seeing is, 

for example, and it's an awful example, but I think it 

highlights the potential issues here-- a student 

finishing up with a program, and then the Alumni 

Association having to track and, you know, ask, like, 

Hey, you know, like, Where's your address? And you know, 

that, that kind of situation, and if we don't , put in 

place proper guard rails, this really could be very 

hurtful, you know, to the students that we're trying to 

serve. So, I definitely would like to see how we can, you 

know, I think the use of existing data points so that 

it's not as invasive and you know, people know, that 

they're, constantly being looked over, you know, over 

their shoulder as to, hey, people are waiting to see, you 

know, if I recidivate. So, but I think there's a lot of 

good, community partners that are publishing reports in 

this space and using data. I would like to see how the 

Department will kind of move forward with this for 

conversations as we get ready to figure out how this data 

will 100% be tracked.
57

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

 MS. MCARDLE: Stan.

 DR. ANDRISSE: So, I wanted to ask for 

clarification, and then also, you know, propose a 

thought. So clarification question. These are the metrics 

that will be used to determine if a prison education 

program is able to continue offering a prison education 

program, Correct? Could you clarify what the use of this 

is?

 MR. WASHINGTON: Can we, Vanessa, can 

you project the amendatory language? And can you scroll 

down to the definition? Yep, 668 and then scroll down a 

little more. Scroll down a little more. So three i, yep, 

there, that's perfect. So we say here, after two years of 

approval under paragraph two, that's remember, from our 

discussion, paragraph two was that initial timeframe, 

because we know that institutions and the Bureau of 

Prisons won't have data. So we're giving them two years. 

Now the schools, the programs have to be approved by the 

Bureau of Prisons, but they don't have to be approved 

under these standards. So after the two years of approval 

under paragraph two, has been determined by the Bureau of 

Prisons, the appropriate State Department of corrections, 

or another entity that is responsible for overseeing 

correctional facilities to be operating in the best 

interests of students. An oversight entity's 
58

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

determination that a prison education program is 

operating in the best interest of students is based on 

all of the following. And so that's BOP-- and DOC will 

base their determination on these indicators. And what 

we're going to do here is define indicators to provide to 

the Bureau of Prisons.

 DR. ANDRISSE: Okay. So the program 

has started offering a college in prison program. And 

it's now been two years and these metrics need to be 

provided to assure that they continue? Is that a correct 

summation of it? 

 MR. WASHINGTON: Correct. 

 DR. ANDRISSE: And so I'm sorry to be 

rehashing this. What is the process to even first let 

them in to the prison? Just the DOC approving that they 

can come in and offer College in prison?

 MR. WASHINGTON: A prison education 

program, correct?

 DR. ANDRISSE: For the first two 

years. So the DOC is the gatekeeper, to decide if a 

prison education program comes into their Correctional 

Facility. And then after two years, they have to meet 

these metrics to continue being a prison education 

program?

 MR. WASHINGTON: Based on how we 
59

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

define them during the subcommittee.

 DR. ANDRISSE: Okay. And so my 

proposal is, should the Department of ED be the one that 

is determining the eligibility of the program? And I 

mean, it sounds Like, again, the DOC is the one that's 

determining. I'm just I guess I'm, I'm a little bit mixed 

up on, I understand that we're trying to figure out the 

metrics of what a good quality program that is working in 

the best interest of students. I'm just wanting 

clarification on how it's going to be used and who is 

using it?

 MR. WASHINGTON: Belinda, I am so 

sorry. I know you've been waiting. I just want to answer 

Stan's questions as they come. So Belinda, would you mind 

if I answered this question and then we will turn it over 

to you? I do apologize for making you wait.

 MS. MCARDLE: I think it was actually 

Kim.

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

(Inaudible) answer the question. I can't see Kim on my 

screen if you have a thumbs up? Okay. Well, for what we--

Stan, what I heard yesterday was, and you correct me if 

I'm wrong, but it was pretty clear to me, what I heard 

yesterday was that the Bureau of Prisons and State 

Department of Corrections could not collect all this 
60

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

information. So that seems to signal to me that the 

Department should be defining the process to provide 

guidelines on how the Bureau of Prisons makes these 

determinations. State Departments of corrections or other 

correctional authorities are tasked with reviewing and 

approving individual programs. And this will be a new 

role for many of them. And to ensure adequate protections 

for students, and a fair and comparable process across 

states, we believe that it is appropriate for the 

Department to define these terms. And then the DOCs, the 

BOPs and DOCs, will then determine whether the programs 

meet those definitions. I thank you Sophie. Thank you. 

Thank you. Thank you for letting me skip ahead, Kim and 

Belinda. 

 MS. MCARDLE: Kim and then Belinda.

 MS. CARY: That's no problem Aaron, 

thank you. I think just a follow-up from an institution 

perspective. Knowing that DOE we will have things in 

place for us to monitor our progress and if we're doing 

things correctly. I think, to answer Stan, I think this 

is the DOC’s opportunity to get rid of the institution 

that's not fulfilling their original promise, when they 

set up that relationship to have the program within their 

institution. So I think by the time two years roll 

around, you're gonna know if that's the relationship you 
61

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

want to continue for incarcerated individuals at your 

correctional facility. So I think that's kind of a, I 

think it's good, I'm glad to say that they're, we want to 

make sure that we're fulfilling our role in our what 

we've promised to do. And these metrics, I think, will 

have a good role in that. Thank you.

 MS. MCARDLE: Belinda and then Stan.

 MS. WHEELER: Thank you. Aaron, to get 

back to your question earlier about the timeframe, you 

know, if we haven't had to, indeed, you know, collate 

data on recidivism. I think we would like to see a very 

long runway given, you know, I do not have carceral 

experience myself, but I've worked and have friends who 

have carceral experience-- and that transition back takes 

time, you know, it takes time for the individual, you 

know, the community, and things of that nature. So if we 

do indeed have to, to count some data, I would, you know, 

I think it would be in our best interests to give 

individuals, their families and communities time to you 

know, get back, readjust, you know, get immersed back 

into the community and things of that nature. So, I would 

like to kind of put out there perhaps something like a 

five to seven year, kind of timeframe here again, you 

know, before we actually start, you know, checking to 

see, you know, if someone has indeed recidivated. I think 
62

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

doing smaller intervals of, you know, three months, six 

months, twelve months, whatever that case might be, I 

think that I'm not sure that that's very positive. I 

don't think that collecting this data in of itself is 

positive anyways. But I like the idea of that longer 

runway, so that, you know, people have a chance to 

readjust and, you know, hopefully again, with these 

wraparound services, the community and things like that, 

I think if we do indeed have to capture that snapshot, 

that it would be, you know, it would definitely be more 

advantageous. And that's another point that you'd said 

about, you know, what is the definition that we're going 

to put in here? You know, is it going to be a new felony? 

Is that a return to prison? You know, Dr. McTier had 

mentioned, you know, sometimes people might be out on 

probation and, you know, some something happens that, for 

whatever reason, unfortunately gets them back into the, 

to the system, I think it would be more fair in capturing 

this data that we're a little uncomfortable with, that we 

really specify exactly how that metric is defined. 

Because I think something like a new felony is very much 

different than if someone you know, is out on probation. 

And, you know, an unfortunate situation happens, and I 

don't know, something trivial and unfortunately, that 

person is back. So I think it's really important for us 
63

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

to, you know, take the time. I welcome my colleagues on 

the subcommittee to, to, for us to kind of think about 

how we define that to make it really as fair as possible 

for all parties in this. Thank you.

 MS. MCARDLE: Stan.

 DR. ANDRISSE: Yes, and thank you, 

Kim, for the clarifying point that you made. And thank 

you, Aaron, as well for helping clarify the question that 

I had. And I guess partly what I was coming to is that 

proposing this idea of the Department being responsible 

for ensuring that a prison education program is meeting 

quality metrics. And in a way, the way that I was 

envisioning it, there can be, in a sense, a pool of 

programs, that a DOC can go around, and know that they 

have a list of approved quality programs. And any given 

DOC can say, I like this, let's bring, let's bring five 

of them to my institution in some manner. So I guess I 

was just, but in order to get to that indication of being 

a quality program, I understand that they need to be 

offering prison education. So they would need to have 

already been partnered with the institution. Just trying 

to wrap my head around all of that, and doing that out 

loud. But thank you for the clarifications and a point to 

what Belinda just mentioned. Um, I, the two year 

expectation seems pretty short, I think, to gather some 
64

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

of these metrics after two years will be challenging. I 

would be in favor of what Belinda just mentioned in terms 

of having more time, maybe doing a halfway point at two 

years, but then, you know, having a bit longer than two 

years for like a final determination. 

 MS. MCARDLE: Aaron.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you for all the 

comments. I did say I would circle back to Dr. McTier's 

question, what is recidivism? I think, you know, I'm 

going to repeat myself. But I think that's what we were 

all here to discuss, to figure out. I believe that, you 

know, we've tried to assemble a subcommittee of experts 

to provide us with more information. And I heard Belinda 

say, you know, consider new felonies, or returned to 

prison. Dr. McTier you mentioned if probation is 

revoked. So those are things that can be considered in 

the definition. But I do think that the reason that there 

wasn't a regulatory framework that was presented to us is 

because we wanted to hear from you all, what the most 

accurate definition could be, what the cohort could be, 

what the data source could be. So I see Dr. McTier's hand 

raised, and I I'm not taking Sophia's job, but after Dr. 

McTier's comments, I would like to move to completion 

rate. So we can talk about that before lunch, because we 

have to come back and talk about three more indicators, 
65

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

the inputs, after lunch. And then stop that conversation 

but I hope that conversation would, we could wrap that 

conversation up an hour, so then we could go back to the 

temperature checks for the last hour for the entire 

proposed regulation.

 MS. MCARDLE: Dr. McTier.

 DR. MCTIER: I'm just really concerned 

that the Department is not willing to tell us what their 

thought process was or what the definition was for 

metrics that they've created. I feel like you all are 

trying to utilize us as a scapegoat to put into place 

something that you've already created. And I think that's 

unfair. So I still want to know, what the Department's 

thought process was, what was their definition when 

creating these metrics. It can't just be put off on us 

because I don't agree with utilizing this as a metric. So 

if I really want to hear what the Department’s stance is, 

and I feel like you all are not willing to tell us and 

you all are trying to hop over my request. I don't think 

that's fair.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Dr. McTier, I hear 

your concerns and I, you know, we sent out the proposal. 

And I mentioned earlier as well that this is defined, 

going back to the definition that Congress amended, the 

Congress put into the 2021 appropriations bill that 
66

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

amended the Higher Education Act. Rates of recidivism for 

such individuals is in the actual statutory text. We did 

not provide regulatory language, here, we provided a lot 

of them-- amendatory language in the document, there's a 

lot of red lines. And you can see that we didn't provide 

the mandatory language here because we wanted to hear 

your feedback. We are not trying to trap anybody. We are 

not trying to hold anything back. There is no amendatory 

language right now. For the indicators, there's none. And 

we've assembled you all to provide us feedback-- If you 

don't like what's proposed here. We do really want to 

hear what your thoughts are. Or you can submit that 

information if you want. You've gone on record you know 

to say that several subcommittee members have gone on 

record publicly to say that they don't think that 

recidivism is a good indicator to determine if a program 

is in the best interest the students. The Department will 

take everything you said back and consider everything you 

said. But we're not withholding anything, because we 

didn't provide any regulatory framework. I really would 

like to move to completion rate to have a small 

discussion on that, Belinda but I did, Sophia.

 MS. MCARDLE: Aaron. Belinda has 

changed her mind.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Thank you. Vanessa, 
67

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

can we repost the chart please? Thank you very much, 

Vanessa. Alright, so the Department completion rate does 

not appear in the statute, but the Department is 

proposing to add a completion rate. And so a potential 

measure would be the percentage of students who complete 

their program within 150% of the expected time to 

completion. We talked a little bit about that. And when 

we talked about maximum timeframe, as defined in our 

regulations. Potential data source-- institutions 

currently report graduation rates to IPEDS and, and the 

Department produces completion rates for Title IV

recipients through the College Scorecard. And 

institutions could calculate and report graduation rates 

specific to prison education programs. And institutions 

would need to identify which students are enrolled in 

prison education programs so that it can calculate the 

rate. And a potential cohort would be-- the Department

could align reporting requirements with IPEDS--our 

scorecard calculations, and we could exclude students who 

are involuntarily transferred across facilities with 

additional reporting requirements. I think I will stop 

there and open it up for conversation.

 DR. ANDRISSE: So to my comment before 

on the two year period, this is one of those metrics that 

even more clearly shows that two years is too short. You 
68

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

know, what type of completion rate data could you have in 

two years? I mean, it's, you know, it would be 

challenging to get that type of data in two years. The 

other point that I wanted to bring back is, so any 

program can come in and start a prison education program, 

as long as the DOC who's the gatekeeper, according to 

legislation, has been decided to be the gatekeeper. And 

it's not until two years that we would find out if 

they're a bad actor, according to how it's written, 

right, and then potentially remove them because they're 

not meeting some metric. But if I'm understanding 

correctly, any program could come in and at least be 

there for two years, despite being a potential bad actor. 

As long as the DOC- the gatekeepers- had let them in. Is 

that correct?

 MS. MCARDLE: Stan. Aaron, would you 

like to respond?

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

want to respond to Stanley's question really quickly. 

Thank you. So there are other program eligibility 

requirements that were in statute that we replicated. And 

so if the program had any negative actions against it 

within the institution, and negative actions in the last 

five years, from the Department's perspective, emergency 

actions, suspensions, terminations from a creditor 
69

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

perspective, adverse actions or initiated adverse actions 

--that we've added to the regulation. From the state's 

perspective if there's any revocation of state 

authorization in the last five years, the programs have 

not been able to operate. And then also, that we've put 

into the regulation that even under the initial two year 

period, the institution would still be required to 

provide us with information on how the Bureau of Prisons 

determined the programs are operating in the best 

interests of students. So we would still have the 

information reported to us as well. We have authority, 

the Department has authority to revoke approval, if the 

institution violated any parts of the definition of a 

prison education program. So within that initial two year 

period, there are protections built in to help to deter 

bad actors or to not allow in bad actors. However, if you 

have any suggestions on language, I think that was one of 

the comment bubbles--, I think it was on the kind of 

bubbles we had in the document--I think I asked the 

subcommittee members, were there any additional 

restrictions that we should tie into that initial two 

year period. Perhaps we put a cap on the number of 

additional locations that the institution can expand to, 

in the first two years. Perhaps we put a cap on 

enrollment, or, you know, perhaps we say, instead of, for 
70

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

example, instead of in the initial two years, the 

institution is only able to provide a prison education 

program at one additional location. Or for the first two 

years, for example, the institution has to apply to the 

Department and the accreditor for every single prison 

education program that they want to provide in this 

location. Or perhaps, for another example, could be 

during the first few years, the, the institution that 

wants to offer the prison education program would have to 

submit applications for the first prison education 

program at each additional location. You know, I think 

that's where I was trying to get feedback from the 

committee, whether there could be additional parameters 

around the first two years.

 DR. ANDRISSE: Thank you for the 

clarification.

 MS. MCARDLE: Okay, Kim.

 MS. CARY: Thank you, Aaron, for all 

of that. I know that there's a lot that can be done. What 

I'm saying-- all this, it's actually coming back to 

institutions that I'm putting this back on. So hopefully 

all agree with me, but for the betterment of the program, 

I think there're ways that the Department could retrieve 

data from us and they're still going to have satisfactory 

academic progress in place, that that kind of data could 
71

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

show how students are progressing. It may not always be 

the institution, or the academic aspect of it, it could 

be the student as well, but I think it would be a good 

metric to look at to make sure students are completing 

satisfactorily, you know, amongst all other programs. 

We're talking about two years also and completion rates, 

and 150%. Not all of these students are going to be 

allowed to take full time enrollment. So we're talking 

about a longer expansion to complete a degree or 

certificate in two year, four year, whichever one it is. 

So maybe metrics are put in depending on the type of 

program they’re in as to when things are reported out. 

That helps institutions know how they're doing and to 

reassess if they're being productive or not. It also 

allows DOC to say, hey, they're not really providing us 

good instruction, we're not seeing good outcomes for our 

students. Maybe we need to make a change or talk to the 

institution about that. I think there's a lot of things 

we could put into place there, through additional, you 

know, through colleague letters, language, just as ways 

to move forward. But I don't know that two years is going 

to actually do it. It'll give us a good idea. But with 

150%, that's a normal view of a full time student at an 

institution, it's going to take a little longer, I think, 

in this population, depending on what the DOC allows 
72

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

their students to take. Thank you. 

 MS. MCARDLE: Marisa.

 MS. BRITTON-BOSTWICK: Well good 

morning, everyone. I think for me, this is a big one. You 

know, this is all big, but two years in a correctional 

facility is much different than in the university system. 

We all know that. But we really need to look at this 

unique environment with that two year limit. I think 

there needs to be consistent, like you said, Aaron, 

consistent benchmarks and parameters and things like 

that. But I don't really agree with the two years that I 

think there needs to be some discussion on that two year 

window. So thank you for bringing up the caps and the 

parameters. I think that's so important. The other thing 

is to not to go back to this, but I think the definition 

of recidivism is going to be huge. Because that is the 

first thing people go to, in front of, you know, everyone 

always asks, What's your recidivism rate? What's that? So 

I think I agree with Dr. McTier, we have to look at that. 

So thank you.

 MS. MCARDLE: Belinda.

 MS. WHEELER: Thank you. Just a couple 

of comments. So number one, to get back to your what you 

were saying about completion rates, I think that is a 

very important metric. You know, I talked yesterday about 
73

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

how certain things when people are looking at a 

traditional university setting, and certain you know, 

what your employment might look like after high school, 

what it might be with an associate's or things like that, 

those are standard practices that we see in traditional 

educational settings. And the completion rates is equally 

as important. We know that completion rates in a carceral 

space are likely going to look quite different from a 

quote unquote, traditional campus or a main campus. And 

that's okay, I think that, uh, you know, as we're moving 

into this space on mass, you know, as a post July 2023, 

that, you know, this gives us a really good opportunity, 

you know, to kind of check and see. , The corrections 

setting-- for two years and traditional education setting 

being quite different. A lot of current educational 

programs, who are in prisons, like to run a traditional, 

kind of, you know, fall semester, spring semester, a 

summer semester, and that's it. Is that very fair to have 

that like three, you know, three sessions or four

sessions-- fair to people who are currently incarcerated? 

A lot of students would say, look, you know, don't give 

me that huge break over the summer or whatever, give me 

as many classes as possible. So, you know, I think this 

is a really good opportunity for educational entities, 

students and others to look at how this works. And 
74

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

completion rates will be one good way for us to kind of 

evaluate things. Second point, I just wanted to say, with 

regards to the two years-- I understand my colleagues’ 

concerns about certain things, if I'm understanding what 

ED is saying here, it's my understanding that things like 

recidivism, for example, if we do the five to seven year 

runway-- or completion rates, if we're looking at 

students starting, it might take them four years, six 

years to complete their degree. It's my understanding 

that this two year level wouldn't count against these 

institutions because ED knows that this data would be 

coming sometime later. So if I'm, if I'm hearing that 

correctly, and I'm understanding it correctly, I still 

personally like the idea of the two years because 

honestly, as someone who started a program myself, and 

has looked at other programs, both Second Chance Pell and 

non-second chance, there's a lot of different ways that 

you can see whether or not a program is serving students’ 

best interests within that two years. And if we extend 

beyond that two years, just think about that Pell clock 

ticking for students, so I still like the two years. 

Thank you very much.

 MS. MCARDLE: Dave.

 MR. MUSSER: Mine is very quick, but I 

wanted to follow up on the suggestion that Kim made a few 
75

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

minutes ago regarding the use of satisfactory academic 

progress. I don't want to speak to that particular 

suggestion. But I will say that FSA in response to the 

statutory requirements for the reporting that we'll have 

to do, FSA is working on developing a process for 

collecting credits earned and credits attempted by 

incarcerated individuals. So if the subcommittee thinks 

that that might be a useful metric to look at, I think 

there may be feasibility for the Department to collect 

and calculate something along those lines as well. I'll 

stop there.

 MS. MCARDLE: Marisa.

 MS. BRITTON-BOSTWICK: So I just want 

to say again, that completion rates over a two year 

period in a correctional facility, even our very high 

level, students cannot take a lot of classes all at once. 

It's a very unique environment, they have jobs, they have 

other programming, they are you know, working to get back 

out into the community working with their case managers, 

and things like that. So I just wanted to bring that up 

again, to make sure that that's on the record. Thank you.

 MS. MCARDLE: Stan.

 DR. ANDRISSE: Yes, thank you. I want 

to agree with Belinda, that two years is a critical 

point, but maybe as a checkpoint, as I had suggested 
76

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

earlier. And I also wanted to just ask if recidivism 

tracking is in the statute, you know, it's required. , iIs there funding to do that, and, and two if it's 

required, I think maybe adding regulatory language that 

clarifies that this is not being gathered, or, you know, 

we're not getting this data to assess whether the program 

is working or not, or quality or not, it is just data 

that is being gathered outside of the quality of the 

program. It would be a suggestion that we add language, 

if it is something that we're requiring. And that touches 

on what Dr. McTier says about the use, I mean, it's not a 

useful metric to say that a program is particularly 

quality or not, because there's so many other factors 

that may play into a person recidivating. That, you know, 

Dr. McTier's program may be awesome, it may be the best 

one in the in the country. But that, you know, then you 

are looking at these types of metrics that aren't, you 

know, aren't showing that. So maybe my suggestion is 

that, even if we're tracking it, it's not being used to 

say that this program is quality or not.

 MS. MCARDLE: I see no other hands.

 MR. WASHINGTON: That concluded our 

discussion. Thank you, Stan, and everyone else who 

provided ideas. That concluded our discussion on the 

outputs piece. After lunch, we will look at the inputs--
77

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

that would be the teacher experience, credentialing and 

turnover, the transferability of credit in the academic 

counseling and support services. And keep in mind, the 

Department wants to ensure that the prison education 

programs are offering similar services, or providing a 

similar level of offerings to those that are in prison 

education programs and other eligible programs at the 

institution. So that's what the conversation will be 

centered around after lunch.

 MS. MCARDLE: I believe Kim has a hand 

up.

 MS. CARY: Thank you, Aaron, just 

really just a statement before we break. This was for 

Department of ED to think about over our break and come 

back to give them an opportunity to think about it. The 

issue paper really again does not address the FAFSA 

process itself and the barriers that might be there for 

incarcerated individuals. Part of that completion rate 

might be inhibited by being able to complete that process

each year. Especially for dependent students who are 

incarcerated, there are certain you know, as we talked 

about the other day, you're looking at verification, 

you're looking at different components of the process for

this group, but I encourage ED to look at would 

(inaudible) these individuals, would there be a 
78

Subcommittee Meetings - 10/20/21

necessity? We don't always have the ability to help 

dependent students reach out to families that may or may 

not be willing to help them. And then what do they do? 

They're kind of stuck in the process. So I encourage you 

to look at that and then maybe address that when we come 

back. Thank you.

 MR. WASHINGTON: Will do thank you so 

much, Kim. So we will reconvene at 1pm. Thank you, 

everybody.
79

Subcommittee Meetings- 10/20/21